Since when has legitimate use stopped a DMCA takedown?

Why would Disney DMCA something posted on their official Youtube channel?

DMCA Takedown Tactical Nuke in
5
4
3
2...

Mr. Fisk is SO gonna get the Sift DMCA'd

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't have a fortress like Kim Dotcom - there is a noticeable shortage of uzis for when the DMCA police bring the battering ram to VideoSift HQ.

Your car analogy is accurate, but misleading. If the car were newer, then it would in fact be against patent law to make one on your own. The SCO case is, I believe, patent law, not copyright.

I don't get your argument regarding publishing companies of various kinds trying to make money for themselves and not paying artists much. This is the old "artists deserve more money" argument. Frankly, they don't. And I'm saying that as an artist. If you're an artist and you give someone your art in exchange for whatever percentage, then you've agreed to that amount and you deserve that amount, and no more. The fact is, selling art is hard. It might not seem that way because we see it everywhere, but having art sitting in your house or on your computer and making money off of it is just plain difficult. The easiest route is frequently to let someone else do that for you, and to artists who can't afford a cup of coffee, making some decent cash sounds like a good deal.

Artists who don't want to go that route are free to keep their content and sell it themselves.
>> ^Porksandwich:

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.
You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.
It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.
In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".
Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.
Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.
Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.
Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.
On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......
Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.

You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.

It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.

In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".

Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.

Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.

Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.

Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.

On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......

Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

Soooo...instead of trying to pass laws that limit corporate power, we should stop bothering and give corporations unlimited ability to do whatever they like with the internet they claim they own, and the intellectual property they claim to own?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

In the long run giving government more control over the internet is just giving corporations control over the internet plus legal muscle to enforce their chosen censorship. Where do you think SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, DMCA, etc came from?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

Yeah, we should entrust the web and free speech to corporations. Can't see any problems with that....


Since they are the same corporations that run the government, I don't see how it makes a whole lot of difference.

In the long run giving government more control over the internet is just giving corporations control over the internet plus legal muscle to enforce their chosen censorship. Where do you think SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, DMCA, etc came from?

Isn't this the way DMCA works? If anyone complains for any reason, they automatically have to take it down until there's a counterclaim.

Another content creator who only wants their rights and money stream protected at the cost to everyone else.

And it literally is a cost to everyone else in them giving up rights, plus the people and/or businesses paying to monitor for other people's content and protecting it.....for free or it costs them their money stream.

They want to produce the song/movie, have people pay for it but don't want to design something that both makes people able to use the product as is their right but also make it so they can control it enough without infringing upon the user's freedoms and rights. Instead looking to others to police this for them, at no cost to the copyright holders.

If we could suddenly copy diamonds using our garbage or some other plentiful item in a nearly cost free way. It'd be like the diamond companies wanting the state to test all jewelry for chemical signatures that there are no "copied" diamonds in there. And expecting your competitors to check the jewelry of people shopping there for competitions chemical signatures and report back to them...turn their customers in if it's not absolute 100% positive matches. And then expecting the state to force people to turn over their garbage/whatever. And making other industries produce items/services that leave no garbage/whatever to be turned into "copied" diamonds. No matter the cost to those industries, because the diamond industry harvests and cuts diamonds and people shouldn't just be allowed to copy it and cut out their revenue stream. You must protect their revenue stream at the cost to your own...and they'll get laws to say and do as much. Except....if this were actually possible, good luck stopping it and convincing people to not laugh at you and your dumb/"old way"/hard/pointless/whatever way of diamond creation. People'd be driving diamond encrusted cars and manufacturing companies would be replacing their expensive diamond tipped stuff with "copied" diamonds, because they'd be foolish not to move to the more cost effective way of operating.

Now cost-effective in handling piracy = bare minimum which = DMCA procedure to the bare minimum requirement, no more, no less. Otherwise you end up policing everything on imperfect data of who owns what copyrights and who has bought what items, etc...and creating a mess for everyone...especially people who use your services.

The indictment can be found here, the corresponding DoJ press release here. And someone listed up a few key points over at reddit.
>> ^entr0py:

I thought sites like MegaUpload play by the same rules as YouTube. That is, users upload the files freely without human review, and so there's inevitably a lot of copyright violations. And, in exchange, the site immediately caves to any DMCA takedown request without reviewing it's merits.
How is their business model any different than YouTube?

I thought sites like MegaUpload play by the same rules as YouTube. That is, users upload the files freely without human review, and so there's inevitably a lot of copyright violations. And, in exchange, the site immediately caves to any DMCA takedown request without reviewing it's merits.

How is their business model any different than YouTube?

DMCA notwithstanding and all, it's an interesting video.

Not to be a smartass at all, but why are we *discussing this? If there's a valid DMCA takedown request, shouldn't it just be killed? Or is this the standard procedure and I just haven't seen it before?