 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> On 1/20/2012 13:24, Warp wrote:
> > There have been actual cases, though, where YouTube *has* seemingly
> > taken the role of a judge and determined *not* to restore some videos
> I believe there have been cases where youtube (and others) have restored the
> videos promptly even without a counter-claim being filed, because it was
> obviously not infringing. And there have been cases where youtube has kept
> the video down in spite of a counter-claim because it was clearly infringing
> and the counter-claim was clearly perjury. I'm not sure it's completely as
> cut-and-dry as it seems in the law, and of course Google has enough money to
> lawyer up to the gills if someone tries to abuse them legally for doing the
> right thing.
What I meant is that there have been cases where the situation has been
far from clear, and almost certainly a case of completely fair use (more
concretely: a critique on someone else's videos, with short segments of
said videos), where the DMCA claim has been clearly made for spurious
reasons (just to shut down the critique), and where YouTube seemingly
decided not to restore the video because of political, rather than legal,
reasons.
IIRC when YouTube was sued by big corporations for distributing copyrighted
material, courts decided that YouTube had so-called "safe harbor" status
(in the exact same way as search engines do): They are not guilty of
distributing copyrighted material, their users are, and YouTube itself
is not to blame, as long as they retain a neutral stance and obey copyright
claims and takedown requests.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The day after SOPA was rejected in the US congress, the US government
took down megaupload.com. Coincidence?
The prevailing theory is that they were planning on taking it down for
some time (after all, the bureucracy and paperwork involved in this kind
of operation is not something that's done in one day) and were only
waiting for SOPA to pass in order to shut down the site, so that they
would have a justification. It did not pass, so no justification. However,
rather than let all the hard work go to waste, they took the website down
anyways.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/21/2012 23:02, Warp wrote:
> What I meant is that there have been cases where the situation has been
> far from clear, and almost certainly a case of completely fair use (more
Well, yes. I was just pointing out that when it *is* clear, it's not unusual
for Google (at least) to do the right thing. There was actually a pretty
high-profile case just a couple months ago, with "mega" or "meta" or
something. I don't remember the details, but the DMCA notice took it down
immediately, and before the owner could even file the response, the outcry
was such that someone looked at it manually and put it back up again.
> IIRC when YouTube was sued by big corporations for distributing copyrighted
> material, courts decided that YouTube had so-called "safe harbor" status
> (in the exact same way as search engines do): They are not guilty of
> distributing copyrighted material, their users are, and YouTube itself
> is not to blame, as long as they retain a neutral stance and obey copyright
> claims and takedown requests.
Yes. That's the point of the DMCA takedown stuff. You get to take it down,
unless the other side argues against it, and the people in the middle just
have to follow the rules and leave it up to the courts. YouTube can't be
deciding on their own what's legal and what isn't.
I think we're mostly in agreement here. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The day after SOPA was rejected in the US congress, the US government
> took down megaupload.com. Coincidence?
>
> The prevailing theory is that they were planning on taking it down for
> some time (after all, the bureucracy and paperwork involved in this kind
> of operation is not something that's done in one day) and were only
> waiting for SOPA to pass in order to shut down the site, so that they
> would have a justification. It did not pass, so no justification. However,
> rather than let all the hard work go to waste, they took the website down
> anyways.
>
Using existing laws, proving that PIPA and SOPA were unnecessary after all.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/01/2012 02:11 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The super dumb comes from the presumption that they shouldn't have to
> have just cause, or evidence, or a court order, or anything else,
> presumably, other than some moron's "anonymous tip".
Well, it /does/ make it very much easier to quietly censor things you
don't want people to see, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2012 10:56 AM, Invisible wrote:
> (Inevitable, isn't it?)
>
> OK, so a few days ago I hadn't heard of this. (Why would I?) Wikipedia
> was threatening to shut down for a day, in protest of a law which might
> shut it down. (Isn't that like opposing lower motorway speed limits by
> driving really slowly? Weird...)
>
> So for a day Wikipedia was gone. (Or rather, it appears, and then
> immediately vanishes.) QC had a big banner at the top. And XKCD was a
> petition as well.
>
> So what's this all about then? Well, according to Wikipedia (who,
> remember, are protesting this), these are new laws intended to stop
> online content piracy. (This is comparable to passing a law to try to
> make water not wet any more.) Obviously I haven't read the actual text
> of the bills. (I wouldn't understand a word of it.) But according to the
> sources I've seen, there are a number of problems:
>
> 1. If any website contains greater than zero items of illegal content,
> it can be blacklisted.
>
> 2. Proof is not required. A media company merely needs to /claim/ that
> illegal content is present, and the site will be blacklisted. There is
> no requirement to notify the site, nor to prove anything in any court of
> law.
Which is where I man the barricades. The Spanish Inquisition ended
centuries ago, and should not be brought back.
> The problem is that it seems to be laughably easy to blacklist
> something, absurdly hard for an innocent site to get itself off the
> blacklist, and lets not forget the best part: Any half-competent
> computer nerd can trivially circumvent the blacklist. So this is going
> to have *such* a big impact on piracy...
Actually, the laughably easy part is for a pirate site to register a new
domain, spam out their new address to heaven and earth, and be back in
business in, what, a day?
It is the stereotype of government solutions: Give authorities an
easily-abused power that will do little if anything about the problem
that the law is supposed to combat.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2012 12:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:56:30 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> If they were planning to make it legal to lock Americans up without
>> trial, *that* would be seriously disturbing.
>
> They already have that. It was part of the most recent defense
> appropriations bill that was signed into law.
>
> Obama issued a 'signing statement' saying that his administration
> wouldn't use indefinite detention on American citizens, but there's
> nothing to stop the next administration from doing that.
So the next President could round up the Congressmen who wrote that
provision, toss them in prison, and tell them that they can go free when
they repeal it.
I hereby announce my candidacy...
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wait, isn't Pipa some gal who's in the tabloids a lot?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/01/2012 10:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Wait, isn't Pipa some gal who's in the tabloids a lot?
I wouldn't know; I don't read comic books.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> Le 2012-01-22 02:09, Warp a écrit :
> > The day after SOPA was rejected in the US congress, the US government
> > took down megaupload.com. Coincidence?
> >
> > The prevailing theory is that they were planning on taking it down for
> > some time (after all, the bureucracy and paperwork involved in this kind
> > of operation is not something that's done in one day) and were only
> > waiting for SOPA to pass in order to shut down the site, so that they
> > would have a justification. It did not pass, so no justification. However,
> > rather than let all the hard work go to waste, they took the website down
> > anyways.
> >
> Using existing laws, proving that PIPA and SOPA were unnecessary after all.
And now the US government has the IP addresses if millions of people who
have uploaded and downloaded illegal material to megaupload.com. What do
you think they will do with those addresses?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
