4 ms·

Encrypted IP is still IP.

by sillysaurus3 9y ago

chii 9y ago
a url isn't and can't be IP - otherwise, how would anyone go to any website without violating copyright?
- tyingq 9y ago
  That's what I'm getting at. The DMCA complaint should have been rejected. It wasn't because the people filtering the incoming requests are using a simple high pass filter of "is this text on this page". So, if you encode the data, you remove the ability to use the DMCA inappropriately.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    There are two aspects to your question which are tangled together. 1. Can IP be encoded as a way of dodging the DMCA? a: no. 2. Will encoding the source material allow you to dodge DMCA trolls? I think the answer is again no. The tradeoff in complexity isn't worth the marginal gains. Imagine not being able to browse the code on github, for example, since it's encoded. A better response is to fight. If the DMCA has been abused, it's up to us to meet each claim with energy and on the same battlefield. It's tiring work, but this is the compromise America has reached circa 2017.
    - goodplay 9y ago
      >1. Can IP be encoded as a way of dodging the DMCA? a: no. This is false if the IP being enforced is trademark (which I'm not even sure is covered by the DMCA).
    - tyingq 9y ago
      I don't consider a url to be IP. So the encoding isn't skirting anything. It is just removing an easy, incorrect loophole. They are getting away with the DMCA complaint filing because most providers will allow them if you can find the "matching infringing text" on the page, without further justification. Encoding it forces the DMCA filer to more comprehensively explain what is being violated. Basically it just raises the bar to a point where frivilous complaints can't clear it.
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        No one is getting away with the DMCA complaint. The target in this case did not file a counter notification. If they'd done that, then the DMCA complaint would be invalidated. You can argue that's unfair, but we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. And these are the rules. Encoding it forces the DMCA filer to more comprehensively explain what is being violated. Basically it just raises the bar to a point where frivilous complaints can't clear it. I think the crux of the disagreement is that I've seen how tenacious DMCA trolls are. They're smart. We like to think of them as dumb, but that's just flattery. If you're trying to apply technical tricks to get around the legal system, you generally lose. The way to win in this case is to meet force with force on the same terms: file a counter-notification. I think you're underestimating how valuable it is to have the content un-encoded on github. Anyone can see it. Flip through their commit logs. They have dozens of contributors that add or remove URLs almost daily. That wouldn't happen if it were encoded.
        tyingq 9y ago
        Filing a counter notice has risk...being right still has costs. Obscuring it makes the DMCA filer have to better explain the why in the request. Something more than just "this short piece text is on this page and I don't like it".
        stale2002 9y ago
        Technical solutions to get around the legal system can work quite well. Just go ask all the not-in-jail users of The Pirate Bay. Github is a very above the table solution for distributing a list of things. But if it gets to expensive to host it there, due to frivolous lawsuit threats, I expect other solutions to distributing these lists start to pop up. The best advantage of encoding or even encrypting this stuff would be obfuscation. It would make is much more difficult for someone to even become AWARE that they are being blocked, if the info is hidden. Not everybody has the resources to fight off trolls, even if what they are doing is completely legal (as in this case). Sometimes technical solutions are your only option.
        9y ago
tyingq 9y ago
Encoded, not encrypted. I can't be violating a copyright with text that can't possibly create brand confusion, etc. The DMCA complaint is patently invalid in this case. A counter notice would almost certainly eventually succeed, it's just a lot of work and potential spend in legal. Encoding it is just removing the ability to use it inappropriately in the first place.
- freeone3000 9y ago
  "brand confusion"? You seem to be conflating copyright law with trademark law. If I had a copy of "Steamboat Willie", it wouldn't matter if it was H.264 encoded or md5summed or stored in an AES locker, it's still a copyright violation because I don't have a license for the content.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    I'm not, the filer of the DMCA is. How else could just a uri being on a page cause a DMCA takedown of a page? That's what happened...they filed a DMCA because the text "http://whatever" http://whatever" was on a github page. Which sounds a lot like meaning trademark, but saying copyright. That's why I don't consider this underhanded. As you mention, it's not copyrighted in the first place. Obscuring it is just closing the loophole that's being exploited. I'm not talking about obscuring long passages of copyrighted text. Just obscuring one plaintext url that's on a page with others.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      The project maintainer wanted to take it down. He has gone on record saying that the url shouldn't have been there in the first place, regardless of the DMCA. If you put an encrypted blob on each line instead of a plaintext url, the DMCA notice will contain "My copyrighted work appears at <link to github line number> which decrypts to <my url> when using <decryption method>." It's exactly the same as the original claim. If you feel they're not technically sophisticated enough to file a claim like this, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Encrypted IP is still IP.

chii 9y ago

a url isn't and can't be IP - otherwise, how would anyone go to any website without violating copyright?

tyingq 9y ago
That's what I'm getting at. The DMCA complaint should have been rejected. It wasn't because the people filtering the incoming requests are using a simple high pass filter of "is this text on this page". So, if you encode the data, you remove the ability to use the DMCA inappropriately.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  There are two aspects to your question which are tangled together. 1. Can IP be encoded as a way of dodging the DMCA? a: no. 2. Will encoding the source material allow you to dodge DMCA trolls? I think the answer is again no. The tradeoff in complexity isn't worth the marginal gains. Imagine not being able to browse the code on github, for example, since it's encoded. A better response is to fight. If the DMCA has been abused, it's up to us to meet each claim with energy and on the same battlefield. It's tiring work, but this is the compromise America has reached circa 2017.
  - goodplay 9y ago
    >1. Can IP be encoded as a way of dodging the DMCA? a: no. This is false if the IP being enforced is trademark (which I'm not even sure is covered by the DMCA).
  - tyingq 9y ago
    I don't consider a url to be IP. So the encoding isn't skirting anything. It is just removing an easy, incorrect loophole. They are getting away with the DMCA complaint filing because most providers will allow them if you can find the "matching infringing text" on the page, without further justification. Encoding it forces the DMCA filer to more comprehensively explain what is being violated. Basically it just raises the bar to a point where frivilous complaints can't clear it.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      No one is getting away with the DMCA complaint. The target in this case did not file a counter notification. If they'd done that, then the DMCA complaint would be invalidated. You can argue that's unfair, but we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. And these are the rules. Encoding it forces the DMCA filer to more comprehensively explain what is being violated. Basically it just raises the bar to a point where frivilous complaints can't clear it. I think the crux of the disagreement is that I've seen how tenacious DMCA trolls are. They're smart. We like to think of them as dumb, but that's just flattery. If you're trying to apply technical tricks to get around the legal system, you generally lose. The way to win in this case is to meet force with force on the same terms: file a counter-notification. I think you're underestimating how valuable it is to have the content un-encoded on github. Anyone can see it. Flip through their commit logs. They have dozens of contributors that add or remove URLs almost daily. That wouldn't happen if it were encoded.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        Filing a counter notice has risk...being right still has costs. Obscuring it makes the DMCA filer have to better explain the why in the request. Something more than just "this short piece text is on this page and I don't like it".
      - stale2002 9y ago
        Technical solutions to get around the legal system can work quite well. Just go ask all the not-in-jail users of The Pirate Bay. Github is a very above the table solution for distributing a list of things. But if it gets to expensive to host it there, due to frivolous lawsuit threats, I expect other solutions to distributing these lists start to pop up. The best advantage of encoding or even encrypting this stuff would be obfuscation. It would make is much more difficult for someone to even become AWARE that they are being blocked, if the info is hidden. Not everybody has the resources to fight off trolls, even if what they are doing is completely legal (as in this case). Sometimes technical solutions are your only option.
        9y ago

tyingq 9y ago

Encoded, not encrypted. I can't be violating a copyright with text that can't possibly create brand confusion, etc. The DMCA complaint is patently invalid in this case. A counter notice would almost certainly eventually succeed, it's just a lot of work and potential spend in legal. Encoding it is just removing the ability to use it inappropriately in the first place.

freeone3000 9y ago
"brand confusion"? You seem to be conflating copyright law with trademark law. If I had a copy of "Steamboat Willie", it wouldn't matter if it was H.264 encoded or md5summed or stored in an AES locker, it's still a copyright violation because I don't have a license for the content.
- tyingq 9y ago
  I'm not, the filer of the DMCA is. How else could just a uri being on a page cause a DMCA takedown of a page? That's what happened...they filed a DMCA because the text "http://whatever" http://whatever" was on a github page. Which sounds a lot like meaning trademark, but saying copyright. That's why I don't consider this underhanded. As you mention, it's not copyrighted in the first place. Obscuring it is just closing the loophole that's being exploited. I'm not talking about obscuring long passages of copyrighted text. Just obscuring one plaintext url that's on a page with others.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    The project maintainer wanted to take it down. He has gone on record saying that the url shouldn't have been there in the first place, regardless of the DMCA. If you put an encrypted blob on each line instead of a plaintext url, the DMCA notice will contain "My copyrighted work appears at <link to github line number> which decrypts to <my url> when using <decryption method>." It's exactly the same as the original claim. If you feel they're not technically sophisticated enough to file a claim like this, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.