10 ms·

How the process 'should work' is not how it works in practice. A good example is the numerous times that Wikipedia has had to delete an image depicting a trivi

by mukyu 17y ago

How the process 'should work' is not how it works in practice. A good example is the numerous times that Wikipedia has had to delete an image depicting a trivial symbol that a white nationalist organization uses as their logo.[1][2] Wikimedia has a lawyer on staff and has considerable clout, yet they can be bullied by a small racist group. How well do you think an individual fares against a large media corporation on a host that receives a large number of DMCA requests? I know I personally have read many accounts of musicians having their music removed from myspace and youtube with no recourse. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Crosstar.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Crosstar.png [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Crosstar.png http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&pa...

drusenko 17y ago
And how many times has the system worked as intended? Any system is going to have some false positive rate. If the logo/image you mentioned was owned by someone else, then it should be removed. It's not bullying, it's their rights, whether you agree with that or not. And if they don't own it, then at worst the logo should have been offline for 10 days. We don't have enough data to determine of the few false positives we hear make up a decent portion of the total notices sent. From my perspective (I receive notices almost daily), the false positive rate is close to negligible, and the system is working, for the most part, quite well.
- billswift 17y ago
  >And how many times has the system worked as intended? Any system is going to have some false positive rate. So it's fine by you to fuck over an occasional innocent person to help some mega-corp's profits?
  - drusenko 17y ago
    I'm supporting a system that protects copyrights and that seems to work well, for the most part. It's not perfect, but better than not having it, in my opinion. Sounds like your issue is not with the DMCA, but with copyrights in general, which is entirely a different argument to be having.

by mukyu 17y ago

drusenko 17y ago

And how many times has the system worked as intended? Any system is going to have some false positive rate. If the logo/image you mentioned was owned by someone else, then it should be removed. It's not bullying, it's their rights, whether you agree with that or not. And if they don't own it, then at worst the logo should have been offline for 10 days. We don't have enough data to determine of the few false positives we hear make up a decent portion of the total notices sent. From my perspective (I receive notices almost daily), the false positive rate is close to negligible, and the system is working, for the most part, quite well.

billswift 17y ago
>And how many times has the system worked as intended? Any system is going to have some false positive rate. So it's fine by you to fuck over an occasional innocent person to help some mega-corp's profits?
- drusenko 17y ago
  I'm supporting a system that protects copyrights and that seems to work well, for the most part. It's not perfect, but better than not having it, in my opinion. Sounds like your issue is not with the DMCA, but with copyrights in general, which is entirely a different argument to be having.