5 ms·

This isn't an isolated case. In a similar story Warner Bros abused the DMCA to take down HotFile content that didn't infringe their copyright. http://torrentf

This isn't an isolated case. In a similar story Warner Bros abused the DMCA to take down HotFile content that didn't infringe their copyright. http://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-admits-sending-hotfile-false-takedown-requests-111109/ http://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-admits-sending-hotfile-f... Label's and studio's have every right to defend their products. However, they must do it in a responsible way. Stories like this make it difficult for politicians to legislate for more power's when the existing ones are already being abused by those they are set up to protect.

mattmanser 15y ago
This isn't really like that at all. To be honest I found Warner Bro's mistake, apart from the OSS takedown, to be not that odious, you can't on the one hand have the web industry say that trying to deal with so much infringing content is almost impossible because there's too much of it, and on the other moan that Warner Bros make a few mistakes when trying to deal with that vast amount of infringing content, not on one site but on hundreds of sites. There's a happy medium somewhere and safe harbour isn't it, for example YouTube knows that hence the auto filtering software they've developed. Universal's action, however, is pure censorship in a massively misguided attempt to further their own goals. Ultimately it has resulted in utter failure.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  If I recall correctly, Warner Bros was issuing DMCAs without even cursory research into whether they had rights to the IP or not. The problem isn't even so much that Warner Bros was cutting lawyer fees - fine - but that they weren't held to the minimum of responsibility provided by the DMCA for issuing fraudulent (OK, or at the very least incorrect) notices.
  - mattmanser 15y ago
    If someone puts up a 600mb file called 'Thor (2011)', what do you think it's going to be. Do you need to open and watch it? 10s or 100s of times on 10s or 100s of sites? On the one hand many sites are making no attempt to stop the flood, pointing at the DMCA, on the other the film and music industry want to legitimately stop these files being shared. I guess what I'm saying is are they supposed to download and watch every single file? As that's precisely what the website owners have claimed is something they can't do, but the music/film industry suddenly has to do that on 100s of sites? It's a rock/hard place scenario.
    - mquander 15y ago
      You're still giving the industry way too much credit for being reasonable. This is not a case of 600MB files named "Thor (2011)" that aren't Thor. In the link above, you can see that Warner Bros., having the copyright to the film "The Box" and the Harry Potter films went on to issue takedown notices for: - Things that sounded sort of maybe like "The Box", like "The Box That Changed Britain" and "Cancer Step Outsider of the Box" (sic) - Portuguese Harry Potter fanfiction unrelated to the films - Open-source software that Warner Bros. didn't approve of since it might speed up downloads - "URLs" such as "http://hotfile.com/contacts.html http://hotfile.com/contacts.html and give them the details of where the link wasposted and the link and they will deal to the @sshole who posted the fake." Does that really represent a reasonable effort on their part to get it right?
      - mattmanser 15y ago
        Yes, I do agree somewhat, there should have been someone checking the matching as well as some oversight on the employees. I find it odd that someone would get so indignant that they'd take down an OSS piece of software. But in the end the music/film industry has been asked, with little to no programming skills, to try and regulate the web industry, who's livelihood depends on lots of programming skill. I think YouTube have moved strategically as they can see where that's ultimately going to end up, with a swing back towards sites doing the filtering.
        Vivtek 15y ago
        The music/film industry has not been asked to try to regulate the Web industry. Instead, the music/film industry has demanded the right to do whatever the hell they like, with no oversight, no due process, and no hindrance, to ensure their own profits to the exclusion of all other considerations. It's bad for the artists, bad for consumers, extremely bad in terms of collateral damage to the Internet and society alike, and ultimately bad for the music and film industry themselves. Every study done by independent observers, every bit of evidence that is examined by people not being paid for alarmism, every new scandal that comes out, underscores the short-sightedness, venality, and sheer moral failure of the bozos running that show, and yet true to form, Congress continues to lick their spittle for a couple nickels come payday. It's time they got theirs. Seriously.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  I find setting up a bot to scan for keywords and submitting legal documents under penalty of perjury without checking its output, even when notified of its mistakes, to be pretty odious.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  That is bullshit an you know it. There is no happy medium anymore than a few rapes now and then are acceptable because you can't always be sure about what the other party wants. The only solution is to the claimant (human, not script) throughtly research it beforehand and then bill the infringer for the time it took when they go to court.
Iv 15y ago
> Label's and studio's have every right to defend their products Labels and studios should not be allowed to move without the express content of the artist who produced the work. Better yet, labels and studio should just move when solicited by an artist.
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  Unfortunately, the industry standard recording contract leaves artists with no rights over their own music. They can ask nicely, and a smart label may be reluctant to offend a cash-cow artist with a maverick streak, but legally the arrangement is totally one-sided. On the off-chance you haven't already read this: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
  - meric 15y ago
    "The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11". I'd argue its slightly better than 7-11; You get to do what you liked to do, plus rent/food has already been paid for. I wonder if you can choose not to use the label's equipment so you can keep more of your royalties.
- timerickson 15y ago
  I believe you mean 'consent' not "content"

mattmanser 15y ago

This isn't really like that at all. To be honest I found Warner Bro's mistake, apart from the OSS takedown, to be not that odious, you can't on the one hand have the web industry say that trying to deal with so much infringing content is almost impossible because there's too much of it, and on the other moan that Warner Bros make a few mistakes when trying to deal with that vast amount of infringing content, not on one site but on hundreds of sites. There's a happy medium somewhere and safe harbour isn't it, for example YouTube knows that hence the auto filtering software they've developed. Universal's action, however, is pure censorship in a massively misguided attempt to further their own goals. Ultimately it has resulted in utter failure.

Vivtek 15y ago
If I recall correctly, Warner Bros was issuing DMCAs without even cursory research into whether they had rights to the IP or not. The problem isn't even so much that Warner Bros was cutting lawyer fees - fine - but that they weren't held to the minimum of responsibility provided by the DMCA for issuing fraudulent (OK, or at the very least incorrect) notices.
- mattmanser 15y ago
  If someone puts up a 600mb file called 'Thor (2011)', what do you think it's going to be. Do you need to open and watch it? 10s or 100s of times on 10s or 100s of sites? On the one hand many sites are making no attempt to stop the flood, pointing at the DMCA, on the other the film and music industry want to legitimately stop these files being shared. I guess what I'm saying is are they supposed to download and watch every single file? As that's precisely what the website owners have claimed is something they can't do, but the music/film industry suddenly has to do that on 100s of sites? It's a rock/hard place scenario.
  - mquander 15y ago
    You're still giving the industry way too much credit for being reasonable. This is not a case of 600MB files named "Thor (2011)" that aren't Thor. In the link above, you can see that Warner Bros., having the copyright to the film "The Box" and the Harry Potter films went on to issue takedown notices for: - Things that sounded sort of maybe like "The Box", like "The Box That Changed Britain" and "Cancer Step Outsider of the Box" (sic) - Portuguese Harry Potter fanfiction unrelated to the films - Open-source software that Warner Bros. didn't approve of since it might speed up downloads - "URLs" such as "http://hotfile.com/contacts.html http://hotfile.com/contacts.html and give them the details of where the link wasposted and the link and they will deal to the @sshole who posted the fake." Does that really represent a reasonable effort on their part to get it right?
    - mattmanser 15y ago
      Yes, I do agree somewhat, there should have been someone checking the matching as well as some oversight on the employees. I find it odd that someone would get so indignant that they'd take down an OSS piece of software. But in the end the music/film industry has been asked, with little to no programming skills, to try and regulate the web industry, who's livelihood depends on lots of programming skill. I think YouTube have moved strategically as they can see where that's ultimately going to end up, with a swing back towards sites doing the filtering.
      - Vivtek 15y ago
        The music/film industry has not been asked to try to regulate the Web industry. Instead, the music/film industry has demanded the right to do whatever the hell they like, with no oversight, no due process, and no hindrance, to ensure their own profits to the exclusion of all other considerations. It's bad for the artists, bad for consumers, extremely bad in terms of collateral damage to the Internet and society alike, and ultimately bad for the music and film industry themselves. Every study done by independent observers, every bit of evidence that is examined by people not being paid for alarmism, every new scandal that comes out, underscores the short-sightedness, venality, and sheer moral failure of the bozos running that show, and yet true to form, Congress continues to lick their spittle for a couple nickels come payday. It's time they got theirs. Seriously.
Dylan16807 15y ago
I find setting up a bot to scan for keywords and submitting legal documents under penalty of perjury without checking its output, even when notified of its mistakes, to be pretty odious.
tomjen3 15y ago
That is bullshit an you know it. There is no happy medium anymore than a few rapes now and then are acceptable because you can't always be sure about what the other party wants. The only solution is to the claimant (human, not script) throughtly research it beforehand and then bill the infringer for the time it took when they go to court.

Iv 15y ago

> Label's and studio's have every right to defend their products Labels and studios should not be allowed to move without the express content of the artist who produced the work. Better yet, labels and studio should just move when solicited by an artist.

RyanMcGreal 15y ago
Unfortunately, the industry standard recording contract leaves artists with no rights over their own music. They can ask nicely, and a smart label may be reluctant to offend a cash-cow artist with a maverick streak, but legally the arrangement is totally one-sided. On the off-chance you haven't already read this: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
- meric 15y ago
  "The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11". I'd argue its slightly better than 7-11; You get to do what you liked to do, plus rent/food has already been paid for. I wonder if you can choose not to use the label's equipment so you can keep more of your royalties.
timerickson 15y ago
I believe you mean 'consent' not "content"