4 ms·

One thing EFF left out re: DMCA-style takedown laws: TPP member nations are required to require takedowns of content whenever a copyright owner _alleges_ there

One thing EFF left out re: DMCA-style takedown laws: TPP member nations are required to require takedowns of content whenever a copyright owner _alleges_ there is infringement. But there is no requirement for a counter-notice or dispute process to get content restored. This could be a wholesale censorship process in countries that decide to have more restrictive laws.

3pt14159 11y ago
Well the studios will obviously pressure content sites to include a dispute process, otherwise trolls from 4chan will issue DMCA takedowns right back at them.
- bediger4000 11y ago
  Please, give them ideas. False flag takedowns will probably be an issue for years, as the MPAA and RIAA will realize the consequences of a dispute process (they will loose on occasion). Or maybe "rightsholders" will get special privileges to issue takedowns and all other takedowns will go through an administrative review. Anyway, the point is that getting a dispute process in place will take years, and lots of abuse, by most stakeholders.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    They are only stakeholders through imposition of laws such as those proposed. A more likely future is that most content will be new and not controlled by MPAA or RIAA. These legacy content holders will fade from relevance as their content is duplicated beyond their control and, even more importantly, rarely ever accessed.
    - bediger4000 11y ago
      I like your optimism, bully for you, and that's a great idea. But I fear that the ISP/"rightsholder" conglomerates, like Comcast/NBC, will only let very select, RIAA and MPAA owned content through.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        >will only let very select, RIAA and MPAA owned content through What do you mean? Comcast/NBC will only let RIAA and MPAA broadcast over their networks? No indies?
        zanny 11y ago
        They already give priority in their cable packages, and they already own Hulu. Content delivery is controlled by content creating big media IP holders. Obviously they will try to keep competition down, especially new media that understands how the Internet makes information free.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        I think it will primarily be determined by who can support (fund) the artists who are making the content people want to watch. Of course, easy, essentially-free, world-wide distribution will make it harder for RIAA and MPAA to maintain control over the flow of mainstream art. Viewer-funded (or even mini-investor funded) models could be viable. I'd imagine they could even compete favorably with large production studios if the right structure was found.
      - walterbell 11y ago
        There's a Reddit thread about possible TPP censorship which describes a variety of techniques for influencing the visibility of posts, https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/3azxth/are_reddit_modsadmins_censoring_tpp_posts_how/ https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/3azxth/are_reddit...
        BgSpnnrs 11y ago
        Amusing to note you found that thread on undelete :/
  - 3pt14159 11y ago
    But the fact of the matter is that every person is a rights holder. I'm a rights holder of this comment. You are a rights holder of your family pictures. It is a tricky balancing act.
    - bediger4000 11y ago
      Sure, technically anyone who creates something in tangible form is a "rightsholder". But the process for enforcing those rights is beyond most of us US citizens, rather like disputing a patent lawsuit is beyond most small companies. The costs of specialist attorneys put the enforcement beyond reach for all but the rich and large corporations. You called out the problem yourself with the "tricky balancing act". Balancing will require lawsuits, and almost nobody has the money for a lawsuit. So "rightsholders" becomes another word for "wealthy and large corporations".
      - mercurial 11y ago
        In practice, it's Animal Farm: all animals are rightsholders, but some animals hold more rights than others.
- adventured 11y ago
  They'll make fraudulent take-down notices a serious crime, and make a few high profile examples. That'll stop the vast majority of it (more sophisticated people will continue the trolling). Studios might also choose to push for an authenticated scheme instead. Their account gets certified (eg on YouTube), and content on that certified account becomes exempted. There are relatively few hollywood houses that would need it, so it would be easy from a scale point of few to certify them.
  - mistercow 11y ago
    > They'll make fraudulent take-down notices a serious crime IIRC this is already the case with the DMCA. I'm pretty sure you have to affirm under penalty of perjury that your claim is in good faith.
    - pkinsky 11y ago
      IIRC you only need to affirm that you believed it to be in good faith. Companies using automated takedown software regularly issue takedown requests for their own websites, google.com, etc.
    - stock_toaster 11y ago
      I beleive the perjury clause applies to whether you represent who you claim to represent (eg. not saying you are a lawyer for SomeCorp when you are not). As pkinsky said, I think you only have to meet a "good faith standard" that you think the thing you are filing against is actually infringing.
      - YokoZar 11y ago
        In practice you don't even need to make a "good faith" claim that you actually have a copyright at all -- no company has ever been punished for sending takedown notices for things that are clearly in the public domain.
  - 3pt14159 11y ago
    I agree that there might be a certification process, but on the issue of false takedowns leading to jail time I disagree with you. Think about it from the studio's perspective: If they do a single fraudulent take-down the fees wouldn't be worth the other 999 legitimate ones. DCMA works because it is fast, but fast needs a safety valve. Without that it will get thrown out in court.
revelation 11y ago
This is where we are at anyway, no laws needed. A few select YouTube content partners allege infringement, there is no recourse, there is no law that gives you leverage for complaints made in bad faith, and just like that you are now excluded from the monopoly in online video.
frik 11y ago
I would like to see a TTIP analyses as well (US <-> EU).

3pt14159 11y ago

Well the studios will obviously pressure content sites to include a dispute process, otherwise trolls from 4chan will issue DMCA takedowns right back at them.

bediger4000 11y ago
Please, give them ideas. False flag takedowns will probably be an issue for years, as the MPAA and RIAA will realize the consequences of a dispute process (they will loose on occasion). Or maybe "rightsholders" will get special privileges to issue takedowns and all other takedowns will go through an administrative review. Anyway, the point is that getting a dispute process in place will take years, and lots of abuse, by most stakeholders.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  They are only stakeholders through imposition of laws such as those proposed. A more likely future is that most content will be new and not controlled by MPAA or RIAA. These legacy content holders will fade from relevance as their content is duplicated beyond their control and, even more importantly, rarely ever accessed.
  - bediger4000 11y ago
    I like your optimism, bully for you, and that's a great idea. But I fear that the ISP/"rightsholder" conglomerates, like Comcast/NBC, will only let very select, RIAA and MPAA owned content through.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      >will only let very select, RIAA and MPAA owned content through What do you mean? Comcast/NBC will only let RIAA and MPAA broadcast over their networks? No indies?
      - zanny 11y ago
        They already give priority in their cable packages, and they already own Hulu. Content delivery is controlled by content creating big media IP holders. Obviously they will try to keep competition down, especially new media that understands how the Internet makes information free.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        I think it will primarily be determined by who can support (fund) the artists who are making the content people want to watch. Of course, easy, essentially-free, world-wide distribution will make it harder for RIAA and MPAA to maintain control over the flow of mainstream art. Viewer-funded (or even mini-investor funded) models could be viable. I'd imagine they could even compete favorably with large production studios if the right structure was found.
    - walterbell 11y ago
      There's a Reddit thread about possible TPP censorship which describes a variety of techniques for influencing the visibility of posts, https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/3azxth/are_reddit_modsadmins_censoring_tpp_posts_how/ https://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/3azxth/are_reddit...
      - BgSpnnrs 11y ago
        Amusing to note you found that thread on undelete :/
- 3pt14159 11y ago
  But the fact of the matter is that every person is a rights holder. I'm a rights holder of this comment. You are a rights holder of your family pictures. It is a tricky balancing act.
  - bediger4000 11y ago
    Sure, technically anyone who creates something in tangible form is a "rightsholder". But the process for enforcing those rights is beyond most of us US citizens, rather like disputing a patent lawsuit is beyond most small companies. The costs of specialist attorneys put the enforcement beyond reach for all but the rich and large corporations. You called out the problem yourself with the "tricky balancing act". Balancing will require lawsuits, and almost nobody has the money for a lawsuit. So "rightsholders" becomes another word for "wealthy and large corporations".
    - mercurial 11y ago
      In practice, it's Animal Farm: all animals are rightsholders, but some animals hold more rights than others.
adventured 11y ago
They'll make fraudulent take-down notices a serious crime, and make a few high profile examples. That'll stop the vast majority of it (more sophisticated people will continue the trolling). Studios might also choose to push for an authenticated scheme instead. Their account gets certified (eg on YouTube), and content on that certified account becomes exempted. There are relatively few hollywood houses that would need it, so it would be easy from a scale point of few to certify them.
- mistercow 11y ago
  > They'll make fraudulent take-down notices a serious crime IIRC this is already the case with the DMCA. I'm pretty sure you have to affirm under penalty of perjury that your claim is in good faith.
  - pkinsky 11y ago
    IIRC you only need to affirm that you believed it to be in good faith. Companies using automated takedown software regularly issue takedown requests for their own websites, google.com, etc.
  - stock_toaster 11y ago
    I beleive the perjury clause applies to whether you represent who you claim to represent (eg. not saying you are a lawyer for SomeCorp when you are not). As pkinsky said, I think you only have to meet a "good faith standard" that you think the thing you are filing against is actually infringing.
    - YokoZar 11y ago
      In practice you don't even need to make a "good faith" claim that you actually have a copyright at all -- no company has ever been punished for sending takedown notices for things that are clearly in the public domain.
- 3pt14159 11y ago
  I agree that there might be a certification process, but on the issue of false takedowns leading to jail time I disagree with you. Think about it from the studio's perspective: If they do a single fraudulent take-down the fees wouldn't be worth the other 999 legitimate ones. DCMA works because it is fast, but fast needs a safety valve. Without that it will get thrown out in court.

revelation 11y ago

This is where we are at anyway, no laws needed. A few select YouTube content partners allege infringement, there is no recourse, there is no law that gives you leverage for complaints made in bad faith, and just like that you are now excluded from the monopoly in online video.

frik 11y ago

I would like to see a TTIP analyses as well (US <-> EU).