Login / Register
 
10,000 DMCA Takedown Notices Later...
Subscribe
rack gear
Thread Starter
#1
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #1
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

Thread Starter
rack gear is offline
10,000 DMCA Takedown Notices Later...

less than a year after hiring two part time people, to do nothing else but issue DMCA takedown notices we've crossed the 10,000 notice milestone.

it is a sad commentary, that many of the takedowns are for the same title, at the same site, day after day during the initial release period of the album (generally the first 60-90 days).

the DMCA is BROKEN. we shouldn't have to have the same title removed from a site more than once - and each time we issue a notice it takes 24 to 48 hours to remove.

we should not have to send a notice for the same title more than once, ever - Not rapidshare, not grooveshark, not any one of the probably top 20 offending piracy sites we track, and those are just the ones that even have a DMCA provision (the pirate bay for example does not, nor did limewire to the best of my memory).

if sites want to hide behind "how do we know what's infringing"... well, if we issue you a notice, you now know... do you think the title will suddenly be not infringing the next day, when re-uploaded by the same offending person? seriously? does billy in pittsburgh really own the rights to a radiohead album (for example)? seriously?

keep in mind, we're issuing DMCA takedown notices for ALBUMS not songs, entire albums are zipped as an archive and now distributed with as much ease as songs once were... let me say that again, our notices are for ALBUMS not songs...

there is no question to me why album sales continue to plummet, and why digital album sales have leveled off... meanwhile, I suppose individual songs will continue to grow given the ease, convenience and low cost of a 99 cent purchases from itunes.

simple math says that if each of those uploaded ALBUMs was only download ONCE by one other person, that is a loss of revenue of $70,000 dollars wholesale, in less than a year. If each one we're downloaded only TWICE that is a loss of $140,000 dollars in revenue in less than a year.

And with all this said, I only have the resources to track 10-20 titles at a time with any effectiveness. Catalog is a free for all.

Piracy is the #1 issue to be solved for the recorded music industry, no doubt about it.
#2
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #2
Gear addict
 
Matt Allison's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 350

Matt Allison is offline
The law needs to be changed so that if a site receives more than a certain amount of valid notices within a certain timeframe, they lose safe harbor. And any content site without a DMCA policy needs to blocked completely in the US.
#3
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415

mobius.media is offline
#4
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 635

zosthegoatherd is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
The law needs to be changed so that if a site recieves more than a certain amount of valid notices within a certain timeframe, they lose safe harbor. And any site without a DMCA policy needs to blocked completely in the US.
I am skeptical about any attempt to extend the reach of copyright holders. While I am sure you and almost everyone on here are a hard working individual just trying to make a living, the fact of the matter is that even before piracy became the huge problem that it is, large content holders were trying to wiggle out of releasing material into the public domain once copyright had expired, as well as trying to prevent fair use. In general I have a problem giving more power (no matter how much they need it) to people who have shown a pattern of abusing what they already have. If you give someone a pistol and they use it to scare off their bill collectors, should you really let them have a shotgun because someone is stealing their furniture?

In the Viacom vs. Google case one of the things that came up was that Viacom was issuing takedown notices on things Viacom employees posted as part of promotions campaigns. If the DMCA is to be amended to be more draconian then I want provisions dropping copyright back to a reasonable term as well as penalties for companies that try to abuse the system and overreach their authority.

I do not support piracy in any form. But the rise of the very dangerous idea of 'intellectual property' and the move to violate the basic idea of copyright started with large corporations trying to wiggle out of their end of a contract with society. The fact that piracy came along and is allowing certain bad actors to try to cement their legal ability to behave in anti-social behavior is very bad for everyone. The fact that their house is being looted does not change the fact that they got it through fraud.
#5
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #5
Gear addict
 
Matt Allison's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 350

Matt Allison is offline
As far as I'm concerned, those are two different issues.

Is copyright too long? Maybe. I don't think it really affects people negatively, so I don't really care.

The DMCA is a broken, outdated law that needs to be amended. It is supposed to protect people, and all it does is provide cover for infringers via safe harbor.

The amount of internet piracy that occurs is absurd and unacceptable. And it can be curbed with the correct legislation. That needs to happen now.
#6
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,942

Neenja is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
the DMCA is BROKEN. .
The DMCA does exactly what it was intended to do. Unfortunately it was designed to stop people from breaking encryption instead of putting copyrighted files online, but that wasn't an issue in 1996 (or say 1994 when the bill was started). We just need a new law. DMCA part deux.
#7
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #7
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 11,356

joelpatterson is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
We just need a new law...
One that does what it should.

One that doesn't make Neenja feel too bad...

One that doesn't make John Eppstein feel too good...
__________________
Mountaintop Studios
~the peak of perfection~
Petersburgh NY 12138

mountaintop@taconic.net

www.joelpatterson.us
#8
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline


Many a true word is spoken in jest.
#9
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #9
Banned
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 911

GearOnTheGo is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Allison View Post
As far as I'm concerned, those are two different issues.

Is copyright too long? Maybe. I don't think it really affects people negatively, so I don't really care.

The DMCA is a broken, outdated law that needs to be amended. It is supposed to protect people, and all it does is provide cover for infringers via safe harbor.

The amount of internet piracy that occurs is absurd and unacceptable. And it can be curbed with the correct legislation. That needs to happen now.
Agreed, two very different issues.


Posted from Airports, Planes, Busses, Taxi's, Trains and Hotels via the Gearslutz iPhone app
#10
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #10
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post


Many a true word is spoken in jest.
Yeah..... why not? A compromise.

Quote:
American media commentator Jeff Jarvis challenged President Sarkozy, during a question and answer session, to sign up to an oath to "do no harm" to the internet.
It should be a two way street.
I actually have no interest in 'harming the internet', but internet users and commentators need to acknowledge the very real and present harm being visited on creative artists by some internet users.
__________________
Chris Whitten
#11
25th May 2011
Old 25th May 2011
  #11
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,445

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
The DMCA does exactly what it was intended to do. Unfortunately it was designed to stop people from breaking encryption instead of putting copyrighted files online, but that wasn't an issue in 1996 (or say 1994 when the bill was started). We just need a new law. DMCA part deux.
Yes.
#12
26th May 2011
Old 26th May 2011
  #12
Gear addict
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 359

terryhart is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
The DMCA does exactly what it was intended to do. Unfortunately it was designed to stop people from breaking encryption instead of putting copyrighted files online, but that wasn't an issue in 1996 (or say 1994 when the bill was started).
Maybe in opposite land, but not in the real world. The DMCA consisted of 5 sections. The first dealt with prohibitions on circumventing DRM, the second limited the liability for copyright infringement for service providers engaged in certain acts. That second part absolutely was designed to limit the spread of infringing files online -- where do you think "DMCA takedown notices" get their name from?
__________________
Copyhype
#13
26th May 2011
Old 26th May 2011
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,942

Neenja is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by terryhart View Post
Maybe in opposite land, but not in the real world. The DMCA consisted of 5 sections. The first dealt with prohibitions on circumventing DRM, the second limited the liability for copyright infringement for service providers engaged in certain acts. That second part absolutely was designed to limit the spread of infringing files online -- where do you think "DMCA takedown notices" get their name from?
I guess I could have been more specific, but I thought most here knew when the DMCA was passed and what it was intended to do. It does those things just fine, but it was intended for mass violations from one source. We have mass violations from mass sources which is not addressed in the law. Copyright owners are left to use the one at a time thing meant for large scale violators, it can't be done and the law needs to be changed. Of course if you are just looking to nitpick and gotcha, I'll just say you won and move on.
rack gear
Thread Starter
#14
27th May 2011
Old 27th May 2011
  #14
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

Thread Starter
rack gear is offline
I am both surprised and pleased by the discussion in this thread thus far, progress, at least for GS.
#15
28th May 2011
Old 28th May 2011
  #15
Gear Guru
 
Joined: May 2008
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 12,682

Dean Roddey is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by zosthegoatherd View Post
I am skeptical about any attempt to extend the reach of copyright holders. While I am sure you and almost everyone on here are a hard working individual just trying to make a living, the fact of the matter is that even before piracy became the huge problem that it is, large content holders were trying to wiggle out of releasing material into the public domain once copyright had expired, as well as trying to prevent fair use.
But this is just really a fairly bogus argument. We all know that probably 90+ percent of copyright violation is for material that would not be out of copyright even if it were only five years probably. Because it's the current, popular stuff that is most stolen and on which people depend the most on for their revenues.

If companies are trying to extend copyright, OK, fine, go deal with that as a separate legal issue. But it makes no sense to use that as any sort of argument at all relative to the problem of downloading, because it just doesn't have anything to do with it.

And I hardly think it represents any sort of power grab. The time limits that existed previously weren't really reflective of a world (and economy) in which IP was so important. So I think that the recent adjustments are reasonable. Anything that still has any value after that period of time is clearly of cultural significance. The vast majority of stuff does not and is created purely as a for profit business, and therefore a copyright period that allows the value of such non-long term merit material to completely devalue doesn't seem odd to me.

The point of copyright was never to let people get stuff for free really. It was to encourage the creation of works of cultural value and then let them enter the public domain. If something still is of value 75 years after the creation of it, then it's clearly something of long term cultural value.
__________________
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd
www.charmedquark.com

Be a control freak!
#16
31st May 2011
Old 31st May 2011
  #16
Gear addict
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 359

terryhart is offline
Interestingly, a Federal Court in Illinois dealt with similar facts just a couple weeks ago. (Link)

A copyright owner had sued a video hosting site. One of the things it claimed was that even though it had sent multiple DMCA notices, the same works kept reappearing on the site.

The video site asked the court to dismiss the claim for contributory copyright infringement, saying it responded to the DMCA notices properly and didn't have to do anything else under the law.

The court refused to dismiss:

Quote:
"The knowledge element for contributory copyright infringement is met in those cases where a party has been notified of specific infringing uses of its technology and fails to act to prevent future such infringing uses, or willfully blinds itself to such infringing uses." Here, plaintiff has alleged that it sent not just one DMCA notice, but seven notices over a seven-month period. The DMCA notices attached to the complaint identify specific infringing files and users as well as specific repeat infringers. Moreover, while plaintiff does not allege that defendants failed to remove the infringing material from myVidster, it does allege that defendants failed to take any action to stop, reprimand, or ban the repeat infringers listed in the DMCA notices and that defendants failed to implement filters or identifiers to prevent repeated infringing conduct. Because plaintiff alleges not just the receipt of DMCA notices but also that after having received the notices defendants failed to act to prevent future similar infringing conduct, it has sufficiently alleged the knowledge element of contributory copyright infringement.

Defendants also argue that plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that they materially contributed to the infringing activity of myVidster's users. They contend that the "mere allegation that additional unidentified infringing material was uploaded to [myVidster] following [defendants'] receipt of the takedown notices is not an allegation that [defendants] materially contributed to the specific acts of infringement that Plaintiff addressed in the takedown notices." But that is not all that plaintiff alleges. It alleges that defendants provide a website that stores infringing material, allows backup copies to be made, and encourages sharing. It also alleges that myVidster has no filters or identifiers in place to prevent repeat infringers and that it took no action to stop or ban the repeat infringers who allegedly posted plaintiff's copyrighted works. These allegations are more than sufficient to allege material contribution.
Note that this doesn't mean the copyright owner has won, just that the case isn't thrown out.
#17
31st May 2011
Old 31st May 2011
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415

mobius.media is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by terryhart View Post
It also alleges that myVidster has no filters or identifiers in place to prevent repeat infringers and that it took no action to stop or ban the repeat infringers who allegedly posted plaintiff's copyrighted works. These allegations are more than sufficient to allege material contribution.
I like this a lot. I've often said I think the primary solution for sites who host user-uploaded content themselves should be fingerprinting-based filters like YouTube employs.

That goes equally for cyberlockers like Rapidshare, Hotfile, and MegaUpload.

With time and broad application, the filters will only get better and better.
#18
31st May 2011
Old 31st May 2011
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
I like this a lot. I've often said I think the primary solution for sites who host user-uploaded content themselves should be fingerprinting-based filters like YouTube employs.

That goes equally for cyberlockers like Rapidshare, Hotfile, and MegaUpload.

With time and broad application, the filters will only get better and better.
With a "media server" type site (Youtube, myVidster etc), the content is "in clear" and can be fingerprinted. But with cyberlockers, the content is generally encrypted or obfuscated. (Scrambled file names, content encrypted and password locked.) You can't legislate against that, as it is the only sensible thing to do when storing "private" data in a public place.
#19
31st May 2011
Old 31st May 2011
  #19
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,445

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by terryhart View Post
Interestingly, a Federal Court in Illinois dealt with similar facts just a couple weeks ago. (Link)

A copyright owner had sued a video hosting site. One of the things it claimed was that even though it had sent multiple DMCA notices, the same works kept reappearing on the site.

The video site asked the court to dismiss the claim for contributory copyright infringement, saying it responded to the DMCA notices properly and didn't have to do anything else under the law.

The court refused to dismiss:



Note that this doesn't mean the copyright owner has won, just that the case isn't thrown out.
Still, this is a big step in the right direction.
#20
31st May 2011
Old 31st May 2011
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,942

Neenja is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Still, this is a big step in the right direction.
I fail to see how a judge ignoring the law is a step in the right direction, but I like Congress to make laws instead of judges. I'm just weird like that.
#21
31st May 2011
Old 31st May 2011
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415

mobius.media is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
With a "media server" type site (Youtube, myVidster etc), the content is "in clear" and can be fingerprinted. But with cyberlockers, the content is generally encrypted or obfuscated. (Scrambled file names, content encrypted and password locked.) You can't legislate against that, as it is the only sensible thing to do when storing "private" data in a public place.
Non-encrypted archives can be extracted and finger printed. CPU and hard drive headroom keep increasing. Size of movies/music/books are not.
#22
1st June 2011
Old 1st June 2011
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
When archive extraction / fingerprinting becomes common, so will password encryption. Movie and music file sizes are generally increasing in size to match the increased storage and transmission bandwidth. (HD TV, Bluray movies, lossless audio).
#23
1st June 2011
Old 1st June 2011
  #23
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,822

chrisso is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
I fail to see how a judge ignoring the law is a step in the right direction, but I like Congress to make laws instead of judges. I'm just weird like that.
In most western democracies judges interpret the law.
In fact many times they rule the law needs updating, changing or chucking out all together.
It's a collaboration, politicians frame the law, and the judiciary try to put that into practice in the real world.
#24
1st June 2011
Old 1st June 2011
  #24
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,445

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
When archive extraction / fingerprinting becomes common, so will password encryption. Movie and music file sizes are generally increasing in size to match the increased storage and transmission bandwidth. (HD TV, Bluray movies, lossless audio).
Not bloody likely.

Pirate culture generally frowns heavily on password encryption because it's a royal PITA to deal with. Plus it also severely limits the audience for the files.

If we can force the adoption of password encryption it should be regarded as a major victory against piracy because it will work to block re-transmission of files.
__________________
All opinions expressed in my posts are solely my own: I do not represent any other forums (of which I may or may not be a member), groups, or individuals although at times my views may resemble those of other entities.

************************************
Inside every old man is a young man wondering WTF happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
The appropriate role for science is the study of observed phenomena to gain an understanding. It is not dictating what people ought or ought not to be observing.
#25
1st June 2011
Old 1st June 2011
  #25
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,445

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
I fail to see how a judge ignoring the law is a step in the right direction, but I like Congress to make laws instead of judges. I'm just weird like that.
Begging your pardon, but wasn't it you who just yesterday or the day before were crowing about some judge setting a "precedent" (which actually wasn't one at all, but you thought it was) that worked to change the existing law in some piracy friendly way?

Why yes, I do believe it was........

You're just weird like that.......? I suppose you are.

#26
1st June 2011
Old 1st June 2011
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Andy Hamm's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 500

Andy Hamm is offline
I'm not sure that something like DMCA can ever work, as it is a US Law, so it isn't enforcable outside of the USA. In Canada we have had our version of the DMCA in the house and shot down a few times allready.

I think the key is to give incentive to ISP's so that they can make a buck off of digital music downloads delivered to customers using their service. Much like the record stores once had, ISP's would get a piece of digital downloads that were purchased by customers on their networks, and legit servers would also get a cut for serving it based on sales. This would give ISP's all over the world a vested interest in keeping movies, music, etc on the legit side of things, as they do not make any money on pirated downloads, and services such as P2P and wares swapping are allready putting a strain on their bandwidth.
#27
1st June 2011
Old 1st June 2011
  #27
Gear addict
 
Doc Vigilanti's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 325

Doc Vigilanti is offline
Y'all are forgetting to look at the silver lining of piracy.

We now know that two people have part time employment to help do whatever it is they do. Makes me wonder what the national numbers of DMCA enforcement looks like. You all should be happy that you are in a position to have a catalog that is enforceable and able to hire people to protect your interest.
#28
1st June 2011
Old 1st June 2011
  #28
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,445

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Hamm View Post
I'm not sure that something like DMCA can ever work, as it is a US Law, so it isn't enforcable outside of the USA. In Canada we have had our version of the DMCA in the house and shot down a few times allready.

I think the key is to give incentive to ISP's so that they can make a buck off of digital music downloads delivered to customers using their service. Much like the record stores once had, ISP's would get a piece of digital downloads that were purchased by customers on their networks, and legit servers would also get a cut for serving it based on sales. This would give ISP's all over the world a vested interest in keeping movies, music, etc on the legit side of things, as they do not make any money on pirated downloads, and services such as P2P and wares swapping are allready putting a strain on their bandwidth.
What do ISPs making a buck have anything to do with anything? ISPs make their money from bandwidth. They rent bandwidth to customers. It doesn't matter if it's a digital music download, a TV show, or some guy posting facebook videos of his cat - it doesn't matter to the ISP.

"Cutting the ISP in " or "Providing incentive for the ISP to handle digital music" just means giving another layer of rapacious tech companies looking for a handout a chance to dig into the pockets of artists who are already getting the short end of the stick.

There is no sane reason to do that. It won't impact the piracy problem, - the ISP gets paid either way.

You could pay the ISPs NOT to support pirate streams, but then you're paying extortion so a company won't do what it shouldn't be doing in the first place, which is a horrible tactic.

The only correct solution is regulation, and since the ISPs have proven themselves unwilling to do it voluntarily they need external, compulsory regulation. I wish it wasn't so, because I'm essentially opposed to unnecessary regulation of the internet. But this regulation isn't unnecessary.

The ISPs will just have to "change with the times" like the tech sector is so fond of telling the creative industries. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot, hmmm?
#29
1st June 2011
Old 1st June 2011
  #29
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,445

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
I just called it as I actually see it every week, John. But I certainly won't attempt to persuade you to change your view.
Well, my experience is that double or triple archiving files, often in multi-part format is quite common, even standard practice (and has been for a very long time), but use of passwords generally is not. When you use a password you have to have some method to deliver the password to the end user. This frequently causes problems and actually is pretty unnecessary when you can run the content through multiple passes of two different archivers sent with different segment lengths on each pass, for example: 1 pass through RAR set to 102,400 kB segment size; 1 pass of the resulting directory of files through Zip set to 160,200 kB segment size; one last pass through RAR set to 90,000 kB segment size. That will completely confuse an automated fingerprinting system and no password is needed. Of course you COULD have a human run the thing through 3 passes of archivers but that's expensive.
#30
1st June 2011
Old 1st June 2011
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
...
You're wrong with most of what you said, John. I've explained why before, you either didn't read it or you don't agree with what I wrote.
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Klauth / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
2
Jax / So much gear, so little time!
0
Infernal Device / Music Computers
19
Jules / The Good News Channel
20

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.