4 ms·
The podcast Reply-All had a good episode about why this is problematic earlier this year. https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/118 https://www.gimletmedia.com
by tantalor 8y ago
The podcast Reply-All had a good episode about why this is problematic earlier this year.
https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/118 https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/118
Excerpt:
ALEX: So finally, I find this website that is called the Center for Copyright information.
PJ: And what’s that?
ALEX: It’s a website that is run by both the entertainment industry and the ISPs, they’re working together. And the deal is, if you feel that you have wrongly received a DMCA notice, you can go to this website, pay $35, and you can appeal it. And if you’re successful, then they will tell your ISP they were wrong, and they retract it, and you shouldn’t have any strikes on your account.
PJ: You found internet court.
ALEX: Yeah, I found internet court.
PJ: So are you taking this case to internet court?
ALEX: I sent them an email and said, hey this person Cayden was wrongfully accused.
PJ: And what did they say?
ALEX: They didn’t say anything, they never got back to me!
PJ: (laughs) Got it.
ALEX: So basically what I found was a completely unaccountable system that was frustratingly opaque. It was maddening. So I decided to try something else.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> It’s a website that is run by both the entertainment industry and the ISPs, they’re working together The entertainment industry wants takedowns eagerly enforced. The ISPs don't want to do work. Ignoring complaints is the predictable outcome. (As is AT&T becoming stricter about copyright enforcement after buying a content company.)
- craftyguy 8y ago> pay $35 And make a quick buck on the side too!
- wmf 8y agoThat's a bargain compared to being on the wrong end of a federal copyright lawsuit.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoIt's cheaper than most court fees (whether those fees should exist is a different story).
- EpicEng 8y agoBut courts actually... do stuff.
- macintux 8y agoAnd have some level of accountability.
- craftyguy 8y agoYou know what else is cheaper than court fees AND this ISP 'court' thing? Giving me $25. It's about as effective as this ISP 'court' thing too, maybe more since I promise that I will at least tell you "thank you."
- craftyguy 8y agoConsidering that the 'process' doesn't work (assumming the folks above are correct about being ignored), what makes you think you won't end up on the wrong end of a federal copyright lawsuit even after your $35 donation?
- icebraining 8y agoCould actually be a way to identify the pirates with money to waste, ie, the most sue-worthy.
- pkulak 8y agoJoel Embiid puts in the work, trust me.
- zdragnar 8y agoThen get sued for fraudulently taking people's money without fulfilling the advertised service.
- craftyguy 8y agoNah, the TOS probably has text buried in it that absolves them from any responsibilities.
- breakingcups 8y agoAnd if not, there's always binding arbitration!
- zdragnar 8y agoNeither of those can apply when the service itself was never actually provided.
- mywittyname 8y agoAnymore, the ISPs and the entertainment industry are the same entities. AT&T owns WarnerMedia, formerly Time Warner, which owns cable networks, movie & music studios. Most of the entertainment Americans consume are owned or produced by AT&T or a subsidiary.
- Scriptor 8y agoI don't know about most of the entertainment. Now that Disney owns Fox Studios they're the other major creator of film and music.
- mywittyname 8y agoAT&T has ownership stakes an a lot of companies which end up working on projects with Fox, Sony, NBC, etc. They also co-own several distribution channels with said companies. So they absolutely have some control/influence over a sizeable portion of the media that we consume, even the segments they don't technically "own".
- xigency 8y agoDon't forget NBC /Universal/Comcast.
- notyourday 8y agoWhich is why the next multi-billion dollar company is a simple ISP, the one charging $$ for delivering IP packets. Unfortunately, it is not sexy enough for VCs to fund.
- mywittyname 8y agoI doubt it. Google couldn't break into this market with all of their money, influence, and incentive. I see nothing to suggest any other company could. Regulatory capture has turned the internet into a de facto monopoly. There won't be any new players because they can be sued or acquired long before they become a threat. Our only hope is for regulations that prevent ISPs and media companies from being under the same umbrella.
- gcbw2 8y ago"self regulation"
- Natsu 8y agoI don't think many people yet realize that this is what people are arguing for every time they say it's okay for a private company to not do business with whoever they dislike.
- pmiller2 8y ago“...a completely unaccountable system that was frustratingly opaque.” Oh, you mean they actually discovered “internet arbitration.” No appeals, no real incentive to be impartial, and a good way to take a lot of peoples’ money.
- JTbane 8y agoLiteral definition of extortion there.
- viraptor 8y ago> you can go to this website, pay $35, and you can appeal it. If you get ignored but you paid, does it mean you're open to make it a small claim case with binding result? Or would that only recover your money (after a fee of $50 or so...)
- zdragnar 8y agoSomeone (an attorney general, perhaps?) might be able to make a fraud case against them. Or, a class could pull together to pool damages, if a court approves the class (which I suspect it would). Small claims courts are typically limited to actual damages; you're not going to get a heavy "punishment" fine added on top. So, yeah, you'll get your $35 back, minus filing costs.
- getcrunk 8y agoThis is a horrible idea. by engaging in this system you volunteer your identity information which up to this point the ISP has not provided to the copyright holder