The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Which side is going to ultimately win? Studio Headphones
Old 27th December 2010
  #1
Here for the gear
 

Which side is going to ultimately win?

After reading this brief, which side do you think is going to win? And what do you think the possible ramification of that win will be?

http://www.ipinbrief.com/wp-content/...main-brief.pdf
Old 28th December 2010
  #2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francomania View Post
After reading this brief, which side do you think is going to win? And what do you think the possible ramification of that win will be?

http://www.ipinbrief.com/wp-content/...main-brief.pdf
that's the $64,000 question isn't it?

http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-...-youtube-23165

http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2010...be-google.html
Old 28th December 2010
  #3
I have a feeling that the current implementation of YouTube's IP policy will render this suit moot.
Old 28th December 2010
  #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
I have a feeling that the current implementation of YouTube's IP policy will render this suit moot.
Maybe - there are larger concerns about the DMCA.

I should never have to file a DMCA take down twice at any site - this is one of the most frustrating things is the lack of a master registry.

While I agree that content holders should share the responsibilities for policing, we should not have to send several notices a day for the same piece of content.

What I really hope happens is that this case shows how hopelessly outdated the DMCA really is...
Old 28th December 2010
  #5
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by L.F.Fuzz
I should never have to file a DMCA take down twice at any site - this is one of the most frustrating things is the lack of a master registry. (snip)
No joke!

You can spend hours a day filing take down notices... and when you wake up the next day.. [x] more have sprung up... often at the same site...
I can't afford to hire an employee to sit there all day and file... and i certainly don't have enough hours in a day to track them all down, repeatedly!
Old 29th December 2010
  #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
No joke!

You can spend hours a day filing take down notices... and when you wake up the next day.. [x] more have sprung up... often at the same site...
I can't afford to hire an employee to sit there all day and file... and i certainly don't have enough hours in a day to track them all down, repeatedly!
Seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to write a app that does this automatically?
Old 29th December 2010
  #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to write a app that does this automatically?
and yet, YouTube / Google hasn't done it with more resources than anyone to make just that ONE adjustment that would be a game changer... Window Dressing or Serious Intent? Hmmm....
Old 29th December 2010
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
and yet, YouTube / Google hasn't done it with more resources than anyone to make just that ONE adjustment that would be a game changer... Window Dressing or Serious Intent? Hmmm....
How YouTube thinks about copyright

But what you're talking about is content owner based takedown notices (I would assume for all sites, not just YouTube), not site based controls. This is a different aspect of the same problem.

It should be possible to have a system scan through all the Google listings (for example) for a list of songs (or whatever), compare the results to a list of permissions, and automatically generate takedown notices based on the results. Why should a human have to do it?

Sounds like an idea for a product to me........
Old 29th December 2010
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to write a app that does this automatically?
Don't quit your day job, John. heh

To err is human. Just ask the RIAA and the companies they hire to chase down illegal uploaders. To really foul things up, get a computer to do the job.
As soon as someone notices, your app will be gamed and it'll end up issuing takedowns for IP that turns out not to be yours.
Old 29th December 2010
  #10
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
It should be possible to have a system scan through all the Google listings (for example) for a list of songs (or whatever), compare the results to a list of permissions, and automatically generate takedown notices based on the results. Why should a human have to do it?

Sounds like an idea for a product to me........
For the actual finding of the song file... i think an app would be great.

However,
Filing a DMCA involves filling out an affidavit... not really something that can be automated.
Old 29th December 2010
  #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Don't quit your day job, John. heh

To err is human. Just ask the RIAA and the companies they hire to chase down illegal uploaders. To really foul things up, get a computer to do the job.
As soon as someone notices, your app will be gamed and it'll end up issuing takedowns for IP that turns out not to be yours.
Heh...... How would one go about doing that? If the app resides on several thousands of content owners' systems, looking for a different set of titles on each one, then how do you game it? Virus infestation? or simply by uploading masses of dummy IP? Dummy IP would tend to impede those attempting to download the pirated content. So by making piracy more difficult for the average Joe that could help serve our purposes as well. For a virus you'd need a way to reliably get it onto the targeted systems. A simple DDOS attack? Really hard to implement against thousands of simultaneous targets.

I suspect that the problem with the RIAA and the companies they use is that they're trying to handle too much at once with too few resources. One (or a few) big systems attempting to scan the entire internet for all applicable content. But when you have thousands of smaller systems, each looking for a much smaller subset of that content, the problem becomes somewhat more manageable and the systems, while individually vulnerable, become collectively much harder to attack. Distributed solutions for distributed problems.*

Don, please feel free to critique my thinking on this......



*-A tip of the hat to SynAudCon for their slogan "Acoustical solutions to acoustical problems!"
Old 29th December 2010
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
For the actual finding of the song file... i think an app would be great.

However,
Filing a DMCA involves filling out an affidavit... not really something that can be automated.
But if you're filling out a bunch of similar affidavits with only certain defined details being different....... Granted, a certain amount of setup and oversight would be required. But the bulk of the grunt work should be able to be automated.
Old 29th December 2010
  #13
Lives for gear
 

Thousands of copies of an app are just as vulnerable as one. (One exploit does for all.) But in this case I was actually thinking of the personal aspect. If you issue a takedown, and the original uploader takes exception and games your app, causing you to issue takedowns for content you don't own the rights to, you're toast. It's becoming increasingly common to see mass takedowns of content on bloggers' sites triggered by people with malicious intent. The bloggers are starting to fight back.
Old 30th December 2010
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Thousands of copies of an app are just as vulnerable as one. (One exploit does for all.) But in this case I was actually thinking of the personal aspect. If you issue a takedown, and the original uploader takes exception and games your app, causing you to issue takedowns for content you don't own the rights to, you're toast. It's becoming increasingly common to see mass takedowns of content on bloggers' sites triggered by people with malicious intent. The bloggers are starting to fight back.
First, how does he even know who's using an app and who isn't?

Second, how would he game the app to make it issue spurious notices? He'd need access to the computers the app was running on.

Third, I don't see how the blogger situation bears on this - it appears to me to be the reverse of the problem.
Old 30th December 2010
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
First, how does he even know who's using an app and who isn't?

Second, how would he game the app to make it issue spurious notices? He'd need access to the computers the app was running on.

Third, I don't see how the blogger situation bears on this - it appears to me to be the reverse of the problem.
First, he doesn't have to know.

Second, the most common way is to post files that appear to be yours but aren't. You can avoid most of these if you carefully watch what your app is doing, but why have a dog if you have to do your own barking?

Third, I didn't make the blogger situation clear enough.

Blogger posts content, typically held on a fileshare site.

Blogger gets up the nose of someone, either by saying something or just being there.

The someone issues a series of "infringement notices" for content on the blogger's site or the fileshare site, claiming to be the copyright holder.

Bloggers are starting to push back, saying that it's a criminal act to misuse the DMCA and site providers who action such requests without verifying the submitter's bona fides are "aiding and abetting".
Old 30th December 2010
  #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
First, he doesn't have to know.

Second, the most common way is to post files that appear to be yours but aren't. You can avoid most of these if you carefully watch what your app is doing, but why have a dog if you have to do your own barking?
Hmm. Wouldn't it be possible to have the app do a download and check the content?

Also, putting up phony content like that would also serve our purposes by making it more difficult for freeloaders to determine what might be good content. The more bogus files there are on pirate sites the better the chances that an average user will get fed up with looking and simply download from a legal site. In fact one of my proposals for fighting piracy involves uploading massive quantities of bogus files to pirate sites. If someone is looking for the latest Lady Gaga single and the first ten downloads they try are junk they'd be likely just to say the hell with it and buy the damn thing.

Quote:
Third, I didn't make the blogger situation clear enough.

Blogger posts content, typically held on a fileshare site.

Blogger gets up the nose of someone, either by saying something or just being there.

The someone issues a series of "infringement notices" for content on the blogger's site or the fileshare site, claiming to be the copyright holder.

Bloggers are starting to push back, saying that it's a criminal act to misuse the DMCA and site providers who action such requests without verifying the submitter's bona fides are "aiding and abetting".
I still don't see what this has to do with my proposal for a checking app. I sympathizer with the bloggers who have legitemately been wronged, but I don't see how this affects us.

OTOH there have been a lot of bloggers posting material that they do not have the right to post. Simply because a blogger is sent a complementary copy of a release for review purposes does not in any way give them permission to post it on the internet, which is what many of them are claiming and is what is behind the recent federal actions against several hip-hop blogs. In fact it is illegal for reviewers to sell hard copy review copies to used record and book stores.

Bloggers have been saying things like "when a company sends me a copy of a new single, what do they THINK I'm going to do with it? OF COURSE I'm going to post it!" To which the correct answer is "You were sent a REVIEW COPY so you could REVIEW it, not give it away on the internet!"

A lot of these bloggers are stupid and cross the line into piracy without thinking about the consequences and legal ramifications of their actions, which is not a legal excuse. And then some bloggers are on the side of the pirates anyway.
Old 30th December 2010
  #17
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Bloggers have been saying things like "when a company sends me a copy of a new single, what do they THINK I'm going to do with it? OF COURSE I'm going to post it!" To which the correct answer is "You were sent a REVIEW COPY so you could REVIEW it, not give it away on the internet!"

A lot of these bloggers are stupid and cross the line into piracy without thinking about the consequences and legal ramifications of their actions, which is not a legal excuse. And then some bloggers are on the side of the pirates anyway
which should subsequently be put on your "do not send to this Jack*** anymore" list heh
Old 30th December 2010
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
...
I still don't see what this has to do with my proposal for a checking app. I sympathizer with the bloggers who have legitemately been wronged, but I don't see how this affects us.
...
By all means, implement it. Just watch out for "unexpected consequences".
Old 30th December 2010
  #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
By all means, implement it. Just watch out for "unexpected consequences".
Well, I'm not a coder myself - I can follow a flowchart but I don't write code.

I come up with ideas and try to get people interested.
Top Mentioned Products
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
ReiCanudo / So much gear, so little time
10
electrorocket / So much gear, so little time
8
mikecorleone / So much gear, so little time
14

Forum Jump
Forum Jump