Copyright Office: System For Pulling Content Offline Isn't Working (axios.com) 60
The process to get unlicensed versions of movies, music and other content taken off the internet isn't working as intended and should be updated, the Copyright Office said in an expansive report Thursday. From a report: Updating that system would require an act of Congress, which can now look to the Copyright Office's conclusions as it considers legislating on the matter. In its report, the office found the system for notice and takedown of infringing materials is unbalanced and out of sync with Congress' intent when it established the process in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA includes liability protection for online companies whose users illegally upload copyrighted material if the online companies take down the material when they are notified by the rights-holder. Copyright holders have complained that this process doesn't proactively protect their intellectual property against online infringement, and the report appears to agree, concluding "Congress' original intended balance has been tilted askew."
Fuck that (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck that and fuck them. If the copyright holder can't keep track of their own content, there's no reason to outsource that responsibility to online platforms.
The mechanisms for handling this shit is already in place. And specious and inaccurate takedown notices have proven that it's impossible to automate.
To copyright holders: if no one wants to buy your content, make better content.
Re: (Score:3)
The 22 year old safe harbor provision enables trillion-dollar companies like Google to index and surface copyrighted content when you search is not going to be thrown out by Congress. All it takes is for their constituents to stop getting YouTube access. Especially now. Companies with UGC platforms like Roblox would stop operating - I can't tell you how many hours my kids are playing Roblox, but if my kids come screaming to me that they are bored in quarantine and I can't work anymore because of it, and I'm
Re: (Score:2)
it is kinda funny though that the whole thing has just made it legal for large companies to profit from copyright infringement until they're notified of it.
the not funny part is where google doesn't actually require actual dmca notices from anyone so you can claim stuff on youtube with bots and claim that you own the videos profits because they are the original version of a song you later covered and put online.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that and fuck them. If the copyright holder can't keep track of their own content, there's no reason to outsource that responsibility to online platforms.
The mechanisms for handling this shit is already in place.
Yeah? Scribd begs to differ - they're even openly charging for access to their library of copyright infringing material. Do you know how to shut them down?
Re: Fuck that (Score:3)
Yeah. Sue them for copyright infringement. How hard is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Sue them for copyright infringement. How hard is that?
Very, as it happens.
https://www.quora.com/Scribd-h... [quora.com]
They have an army of unpaid workers uploading copyrighted work while the individual author has other things to do with their time.
Re: Fuck that (Score:2)
Then that artist needs a better publisher. Or needs to learn that if you expect to make money, you need to understand how to run a business or pay someone who does.
Back when copyright was enshrined, it was nearly impossible to reach 100,000 people without an aggressive business strategy.
Now, you can reach 100,000 people with a 15 second clip you accidentally caught on video.
The Internet has vastly increased your ability to reach people. Which means everyone has access to more content. Which means each piece
Re: Fuck that (Score:2)
Oh, also, if a paperback book is $7 and the EBook is $16, there's your answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that artist needs a better publisher. Or needs to learn that if you expect to make money, you need to understand how to run a business or pay someone who does.
OK. That has nothing to do with the issue of Scribd taking money for other people's work, but I guess you wanted to post it.
How is your own quality-content business going anyway?
Re: Fuck that (Score:2)
Of course it does. Your publisher should be tracking down infringement for you. If they aren't doing their job, you need a better publisher.
Re: Fuck that (Score:2)
My content business is fine, btw. I get paid to produce works, which I release for free. I live fine.
They're right, but for the wrong reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now there is effectively no penalty for companies to fraudulently claim ownership or infringement over the DMCA, allowing them to effectively steal money from others. Companies need to actually be punished for filing these false notices.
Re: (Score:3)
This. I can totally agree with "the DMCA isn't working".
Because they're the one shotgunning the damn thing. And ignoring assholes who do worse, like takedowns on people negatively discussing your media.
lobbymoar, disney, we need to hear your well-meaning arguments for increased youtubebucks
Re: (Score:2)
Automated abuse of the DMCA system and as you've said, shotgunning the system, is why this isn't working.
You keep crying wolf enough times and the providers will delay and ignore you.
Also, making the system work faster or "proactively" would be an affront to due process offered by DMCA counter notices. They can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that hasn't happened. What has happened is that content hosts (YouTube, Twitter, etc.) have just adopted a policy of automatically removing content that's struck, sometimes without even giving the user who posted it a fair chance to file a counter notice to have the content restored... instead they just go around this by calling it a "terms of service violation," force content creators to jump through some user support system that is operated entirely at the service's discretion as to whether they're
Re: They're right, but for the wrong reason (Score:1)
If you're thinking instead of users as individual small-time creator, it's not r
Re: They're right, but for the wrong reason (Score:2)
Re:They're right, but for the wrong reason (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately neither the courts or Congress are likely to do a damned thing and Sony / Naughty Dog will not face any legal consequences as a result of their abuse of the copyright system. However, we can still vote with our wallets and Naughty Dog can join EA on the list of companies that I won't buy games from. It's disappointing because they've been one of my favorite publishers over the last decade and make some solid games, but I can't support what they're doing and I'd encourage others not to do so either.
Re: (Score:2)
That shows how broken the system is. Claiming copyright infringement when you know there's none of your content used (as was the case here) is supposed to be punishable as perjury.
And the funny thing is, I was totally on Naughty Dog's side at the start of this. Unreleased material is the one clear case of infringement being "theft", at least by whoever first acquired it. It's one thing if a game company publishes a game, and then complains that people are using material for it, that's clearly BS: you mad
Re: (Score:2)
There is a way to punish those companies. Fraudulent take-down notices are actionable. You can sue for damages (e.g. loss of revenue). The problem is that going after massive corporations for this is difficult, like with most attempts to hold corporations to account.
Re: (Score:3)
Fraudulent take-down notices are actionable. You can sue for damages (e.g. loss of revenue).
Are they? Is there even a single case that can back that claim up? Sure, you can sue, but anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. That doesn't mean we have a working system that successfully prevents abuse from taking place.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh good lord, I'm not aware of any case where someone successfully has sued. But I'm not aware of a lot of cases where people can hold corporations fucking them over to account. However, Section 512(f) and the Library of Congress advisories based on it spell out that you "material misrepresentations" that the material is infringing make you liable for any resulting damages incurred by the alleged infringer.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they are not. Read the law carefully. There is only one part of the notice that must be given under penalty of perjury: The claim that the notice is issued by the copyright holder of the claimed work or a party authorised to represent them. That's it. There is absolutely no requirement that there even be any actual infringement taking place. This was always by design.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the only part of the takedown notice under the threat of perjury. Section 512(f) provides for suits by the alleged infringer to recover costs due to the takedown if notice was sufficiently baseless. But that's civil, not criminal.
Re:They're right, but for the wrong reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Really simple fix actually. Just require a CC of any takedown notice to the U.S. Copyright Office [copyright.gov]. Or the hosting service is protected by safe harbor. You made a fraudulent copyright claim? You've also made a false statement [wikipedia.org] to the federal government. With all the penalties that are attached.
Re:They're right, but for the wrong reason (Score:5, Informative)
They're already made under penalty of perjury, which is a federal offense...
Not really. The only part of the notice that is under penalty of perjury is the claim to own the work that is claimed to be infringed. If I submit a takedown against your original content and claim that it's a copy of my content that I legitimately own the copyright to, then I haven't done anything wrong, even if there's no way anyone could possibly believe that your content is the same as what I own. if I submit a takedown claiming to own, say, the 1942 film Casablanca, which you have uploaded, then I've committed perjury because I do not, in fact, own the copyright to that film.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now there is effectively no penalty for companies to fraudulently claim ownership or infringement over the DMCA...
That is because the whole copyright regime is not about balance or fairness. It is entirely about protecting corporate profits, and has been ever since Disney began paying for the passage of legislation that favoured it (and by extension, all the other big media companies).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just companies filing fraudulent DMCA claims. Literally anyone can file takedown requests for ANY content, and hosting providers always take it down first, and figure out if it was a legal request or not later. I have seen a mod for a game get taken off every single file sharing platform on the planet because someone didn't like the content of the mod and took it upon themselves to file fraudulent DMCA requests with every file host. What do you do, countersue an internet troll who used someone else
For just a second I had hope (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh I'm sure there are some legislators that want this very much (ie. the ones who get piles of cash from Disney and Sony and Hollywood on a regular basis).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, those legislators want new problems for the Disneys and Sonys to keep cropping up, so those companies have an ongoing incentive to contribute to the legislator's "campaign" funds.
Re: (Score:2)
This is literally what Google do on Youtube... all the companies have to do is submit a sample to Content ID.
It's not perfect, in either direction, but it's not like the big players can't try to stay on the right side of the law.
I don't think they're really talking about Youtube, but if they are, they deserve all the derision being piled on here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand, it's a social platform. Everyone is allowed their own opinion.
You are right, that there are real issues with fraudulent takedown studios - "I don't care about fair use", blackmail, censorship, etc.
But sorry. What you miss are the problems of content moderation at scale [techdirt.com]. When the issue is big enough that you have an entire portfolio of blog posts on just that issue, it might be worth considering.
And reckless/negligent DMCA complaints a problem (Score:2)
We know that:
A lot of people don't realize they can basically make a DMCA notice go away by sending a counter-notice (and a saying "nope, I'm not infringing".
There aren't significant penalties for sending DMCA notices that are bogus, sending them without sufficient care that they are accurate.
Partly because of the two items above, we have a problem with too many recklessly and negligently sent notices.
Before DMCA became law and therefore before anyone ever sent any DMCA notice, the system seemed like a reas
Re: And reckless/negligent DMCA complaints a probl (Score:3)
And that is wonderful for people hosting their own content.
But the reality is most people are letting a third party host the content, and because penalties only apply to those who don't take down content, and not to those who fail to put content back up, the whole system biases those providers to quickly take anything down that's reported, but it has to go through an onerous human approval process to get put back up.
It's as if police could arrest for any reason (which they can) and hold you in detention ind
Re: (Score:1)
but it has to go through an onerous human approval process to get put back up.
The law does not require to put it back up at all.
Private business. They get to host what they want. Its not censorship, remember?
Same penalty for taking it down with DMCA (Score:2)
As far as the DMCA, the "penalty" situation is perfectly balanced between keeping it up and taking it down.
They have safe harbor either way, of they follow the process which tells them whether they must leave it up or they must take it down.
If you tell my host that a video I have on my site is yours, with a sworn DMCA complaint, and I do NOT dispute that, they take it down to be immune from suit.
If I dispute that, saying it's NOT your video, or not infringing, they need to leave it up to be immune from suit
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people don't realize they can basically make a DMCA notice go away by sending a counter-notice (and a saying "nope, I'm not infringing".
Well, somebody needs to let YouTube know that. They just let those who make the claim in the first place decide, so it gets pulled anyway!
Re: (Score:1)
How it works at youtube.
Option 1.
1. Make claim against random video.
2. Select to share the profit
3. Wait for producer to take you to court if they want the money back..
So unless that specific video is going to make enough money to fight it in court then they will just drop it and take the loss.
Option 2.
1. Make DMCA claims against a random youtuber.
2. Make demands towards the youtuber to pay up or you file another DMCA notice and get them permanently banned.
And here you have pure blackmail without any way to
Oh no (Score:1)
"this process doesn't proactively protect their intellectual property against online infringement"
Oh, no. The megabillion dollar corporations are getting screwed. The American people are able to violate their rights! Well we must fix this immediately. An act of Congress to fix this? Well it's a good thing Congress is corrupt and represents the interests of megabillion dollar corporations over the deplorable American people.
Hey, it's understandable - how much did you pay to your lawmakers? And if you
Can't put cats back in bag (Score:1)
Bytes are too easy to replicate and spread all over the world, where US law either doesn't apply or is too difficult to enforce in a timely manner. You can't sue the entire world, and requiring local ISP's to filter it won't work because the offending org can change the content signature to get around the ISP's filter criteria.
Who gets to define 'the problem'? (Score:1)
'the problem' from a content owner perspective is they can't charge an arm & a leg every time content is used, while including must-watch adverts
'the problem' from a users' perspective is they want to be able to use content anywhere at anytime without being dicked(money & privacy) by content owners or the government
'the problem' from a hacker perspective is they want to able disassemble and analyze content, and its delivery mechanisms, and share what they found without being treated like a serial ki
...and it never will. (Score:2)
That's the gist of it.
Plot spoiler (Score:2)
This is scary (Score:2)
You know how people always talk about how it'd be great if the two parties worked together? Get ready for it, good and hard.
Emergancy: We Have to Make Money from Past Works! (Score:2)
And "Copyright holders" have (Score:2)
The idea is to flood the system with so many take down orders the sites just give up and take down anything mentioned.
The system needs "REAL" teeth against the lawyers and the law firms on false take downs. Until there is a very hefty price to pay for being sloppy. The lawyers will continue to be sloppy. It is the
Solved by the Vatican. (Score:2)
A recent ruling by Vatican authorities has decided that no copyright infringement will be allowed on the internet. This will be enthusiastically enforced! [It's possible that I made this up.] Unfortunately because of this inconvenient fact: "The world's smallest country is the Vatican, also known as the Holy See.", nobody cares.
The USA is larger and scarier, but you have to ask yourself; if the US wants to make laws about how the world uses the internet, will the world care?
Fair, in a way (Score:2)
Sure, being a copyright holder and having your stuff pirated sucks. But when copyright and other intellectual property 'rights' have been extended to 'life of the creator plus a millenium' or whatever the fuck it is these days, then turnabout is fair play as far as I'm concerned.
Also as far as I'm concerned, strippers should be able to tattoo the image of the fucking Mouse on their asses and and legally charge admission for viewing, without a red cent in licensing fees going to Disney.
Maybe there should be
Proactive protection of intellectual property? (Score:2)
Copyright holders have complained that this process doesn't proactively protect their intellectual property against online infringement...
...and the process shouldn't.
Contrary to the views put forward by the MPAA, RIAA, et. al. the vast majority of Copyright Infingement is not a criminal matter, it is a civil matter. This means that it is the responsibilty of the Media Corporations (Movie Studios, Music Companies, etc) to enforce their Copyrights, not some enforcement agency at taxpayer expense. When you produce intellectual property, it is your responsibility to defend that intellectual property. It is the cost of doing business.
Year after
Too many pirate ships in the bay (Score:1)
This is a losing battle for them. Enough said.
Two sides to an agreement (Score:2)
The original copyright agreement between the public and the people who generated the content for commercial reasons. It used to be a limited monopoly with rights for derivative uses.
Now it is an essentially unending monopoly (extended every time it expires), with little to no rights for the public. And on the Internet case, while actual real infringements can be punished (which is reasonable), improper use of takedown notices does not even receive a slap on the wrist. Forget the small guys who lose their ha
This is garbage (Score:2)
ISPs and network providers are not in the business of enforcing copyrights and they shouldn't be. If you want to enforce your copyrights then go to court and get a court ruling like was done for years before all this, but they don't want to bother. Copyright holders don't want to spend the money, they just want a cheap way to get other people to do their job.