6 ms·

Finally DMCA is finally seen for the rights violator it really is.

fragmede 17y ago
In the larger picture, it very much seems that Youtube's decision to stand firm on the DMCA takedown of the Mccain campaign videos was the right thing to do.
- GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
  You speak as if they have a choice. If YouTube refuses to stand firm on the DMCA takedown they lose their safe-harbor. Which means YouTube is 100% liable for any copyright infringement happening on the site. Not something you want when users upload your content. We need cases like this to show that certain bills simply violate our rights as Americans. Remember this? http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/index.html http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/index.html
Silhouette 17y ago
I don't understand the argument here. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe there is bias in how this is reported. If I understand correctly, then anyone with certain authority can file a DMCA takedown notice, which results in the removal of protected content. Anyone who posted the content and wants to challenge that notice can also do so, resulting in the restoration of the content, but not until a few days later. In the long run, this mechanism does not suppress free speech or prevent the information from being distributed if proper counters are filed. However, in the short term it can delay that distribution. This is still potentially significant, but it is a different situation. The position of this article and the lawyer it mentions seems to be that the "window" here is a problem, and should be removed. But isn't it fairly normal in matters of legal dispute for courts to make temporary orders that leave options open as much as possible while the case is heard and a considered decision can be made? In the Internet age, any interesting information that gets out tends to stay out and spread within a matter of hours, so it seems to me that if you allow an immediate counterclaim to be filed and the information to be restored without delay, this will in practice negate the benefit of the whole DMCA takedown process and make copyright protection fairly pointless as realistically it will be unenforceable. Of course, there is also the balancing point that other kinds of information that have only short term relevance could be censored for long enough that they also become worthless, as in the election case. Fundamentally, I don't think you can ever solve this problem completely unless you can have a proper court decision made within hours of detecting allegedly infringing content. It's not reasonable to expect content hosting services or ISPs to become judge and jury. That being the case, I wonder if the current situation, where material can be temporarily blocked but only for a few days, really is the best compromise. That allows time for all parties concerned to make representations to a court, and the court should certainly be able to penalise anyone who it determines was deliberately abusing the system either way around. But at least the right (as in, court-ordered) long term decision about the release or containment of the information will be possible in most cases, and there is a limit on the amount of damage that can be done in the short term. Given the potential damage in cases like these once Pandora's box is opened, and the relatively limited damage that is likely if release is delayed for just a week or two, is that such an unreasonable compromise?
- MichaelGG 17y ago
  "isn't it fairly normal in matters of legal dispute for courts to make temporary orders" That's the issue: there's no court involved. An abusive DMCA notice can be filed and take stuff offline for two weeks. If you go to a judge and get a temporary order, and that's later found out to have been a malicious tactic, the judge will be pretty unhappy. But what really happens when incorrect DMCA takedowns are sent?
  - pronoiac 17y ago
    If you go to a judge and get a temporary order, and that's later found out to have been a malicious tactic, the judge will be pretty unhappy. But what really happens when incorrect DMCA takedowns are sent? Sometimes, you have to apologize, & knock it off: http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/03/14/michael-crook-settlement-apology/ http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/03/14/michael-crook-settlem...
- pyre 17y ago
  The real issue here is that there are not real penalties for abuse of the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices have been filed in cases of trademark dispute (for example), even though the DMCA only covers copyright. What really needs to happen is that we need to send plaintiffs and lawyers to jail for abuse of the DMCA. Then people will only file notices when there is a real reason, not just because some automated process noticed the a YouTube video has the same name as a Britney Spears song, even though the video has nothing to do with Britney Spears or her music. [edit] There was a real case where someone's YouTube video was sent a takedown notice because the name of the video was the same as the name of a copyrighted work, even though the content was completely original and had nothing to do with the copyrighted work. [edit2] Part of the issue here is that it's hard to get rulings against large corporations over crap like this unless I can state to the court that I lost $X-million in revenue due to the content being taken down. If I'm a home user that put a homevideo online just to share it with the world, I apparently have less rights that the corporation that sends out 300 DMCA notices/day.
  - ZachPruckowski 17y ago
sh1mmer 17y ago
I really don't like the editorializing of this headline. There has been lots of commentary about the potential rights abuse the DMCA imposes. The headline implies that it's being recognized by someone in a position of authority (supreme court, senators, etc) but it's actually an article about a paper being written that criticizes DMCA.
tvon 17y ago
Use the actual headline please.
joeyo 17y ago
Finally! ;-)

In the larger picture, it very much seems that Youtube's decision to stand firm on the DMCA takedown of the Mccain campaign videos was the right thing to do.

GrandMasterBirt 17y ago
You speak as if they have a choice. If YouTube refuses to stand firm on the DMCA takedown they lose their safe-harbor. Which means YouTube is 100% liable for any copyright infringement happening on the site. Not something you want when users upload your content. We need cases like this to show that certain bills simply violate our rights as Americans. Remember this? http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/index.html http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/index.html

Silhouette 17y ago

I don't understand the argument here. Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe there is bias in how this is reported. If I understand correctly, then anyone with certain authority can file a DMCA takedown notice, which results in the removal of protected content. Anyone who posted the content and wants to challenge that notice can also do so, resulting in the restoration of the content, but not until a few days later. In the long run, this mechanism does not suppress free speech or prevent the information from being distributed if proper counters are filed. However, in the short term it can delay that distribution. This is still potentially significant, but it is a different situation. The position of this article and the lawyer it mentions seems to be that the "window" here is a problem, and should be removed. But isn't it fairly normal in matters of legal dispute for courts to make temporary orders that leave options open as much as possible while the case is heard and a considered decision can be made? In the Internet age, any interesting information that gets out tends to stay out and spread within a matter of hours, so it seems to me that if you allow an immediate counterclaim to be filed and the information to be restored without delay, this will in practice negate the benefit of the whole DMCA takedown process and make copyright protection fairly pointless as realistically it will be unenforceable. Of course, there is also the balancing point that other kinds of information that have only short term relevance could be censored for long enough that they also become worthless, as in the election case. Fundamentally, I don't think you can ever solve this problem completely unless you can have a proper court decision made within hours of detecting allegedly infringing content. It's not reasonable to expect content hosting services or ISPs to become judge and jury. That being the case, I wonder if the current situation, where material can be temporarily blocked but only for a few days, really is the best compromise. That allows time for all parties concerned to make representations to a court, and the court should certainly be able to penalise anyone who it determines was deliberately abusing the system either way around. But at least the right (as in, court-ordered) long term decision about the release or containment of the information will be possible in most cases, and there is a limit on the amount of damage that can be done in the short term. Given the potential damage in cases like these once Pandora's box is opened, and the relatively limited damage that is likely if release is delayed for just a week or two, is that such an unreasonable compromise?

MichaelGG 17y ago
"isn't it fairly normal in matters of legal dispute for courts to make temporary orders" That's the issue: there's no court involved. An abusive DMCA notice can be filed and take stuff offline for two weeks. If you go to a judge and get a temporary order, and that's later found out to have been a malicious tactic, the judge will be pretty unhappy. But what really happens when incorrect DMCA takedowns are sent?
- pronoiac 17y ago
  If you go to a judge and get a temporary order, and that's later found out to have been a malicious tactic, the judge will be pretty unhappy. But what really happens when incorrect DMCA takedowns are sent? Sometimes, you have to apologize, & knock it off: http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/03/14/michael-crook-settlement-apology/ http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/03/14/michael-crook-settlem...
pyre 17y ago
The real issue here is that there are not real penalties for abuse of the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices have been filed in cases of trademark dispute (for example), even though the DMCA only covers copyright. What really needs to happen is that we need to send plaintiffs and lawyers to jail for abuse of the DMCA. Then people will only file notices when there is a real reason, not just because some automated process noticed the a YouTube video has the same name as a Britney Spears song, even though the video has nothing to do with Britney Spears or her music. [edit] There was a real case where someone's YouTube video was sent a takedown notice because the name of the video was the same as the name of a copyrighted work, even though the content was completely original and had nothing to do with the copyrighted work. [edit2] Part of the issue here is that it's hard to get rulings against large corporations over crap like this unless I can state to the court that I lost $X-million in revenue due to the content being taken down. If I'm a home user that put a homevideo online just to share it with the world, I apparently have less rights that the corporation that sends out 300 DMCA notices/day.
- ZachPruckowski 17y ago

sh1mmer 17y ago

I really don't like the editorializing of this headline. There has been lots of commentary about the potential rights abuse the DMCA imposes. The headline implies that it's being recognized by someone in a position of authority (supreme court, senators, etc) but it's actually an article about a paper being written that criticizes DMCA.

tvon 17y ago

Use the actual headline please.

joeyo 17y ago

Finally! ;-)