Never say I am not helpful

[james_davis_nicoll]

Comic artist Randy Queen would benefit from looking up the definition of "Streisand Effect".

Comments

[mishalak]

And I am once again reminded to never, never, never read the *&%^ comments. Tech Dirt is apparently one of many, many places that allows anonymous commenting thus allowing such well thought out comments as someone calling Randy Queen a "blubbering vagina". Meh.

[w. dow rieder (from livejournal.com)]

Nice that Eschergirls will be getting some of that publicity. They perform an important public service.

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

What an idjit.

[johnreiher.livejournal.com]

This guy is a pillock. He's issuing DCMA's about posts about his issuing DCMA's! The way the law was written, it had to come through ALEC or Music & Video industry. Prior to DCMA, you had to go to court to prove that your copyright was violated.

With the DCMA, you are guilty until proven innocent. And since there is no Judge involved, there's not recourse for the accused to defend themselves.

Trouble is, any case against DCMA takedowns would end up in front of a corporate friendly SCOTUS...

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

I'd take you a lot more seriously if you spelled "DMCA" correctly at least one of the five times you tried.

how

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

The typos don't make his point incorrect. That is how DMCAs work. People abuse the system all the time (for instance, sending DMCAs to things like Anita Sakreesian's youtube videos so that Youtube will automatically take them down.) It's very easy to get away with it for this exact reason, because most content-hosting sites will just immediately fold and remove the so-called "infringing" content.

Re: how

[nelc.livejournal.com]

You mis-spelled "Sarkeesian"! Therefore your point is invalid!

Re: how

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

Step 1: Typos
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Profit!!!

[johnreiher.livejournal.com]

Sorry if my mild dyslexia offended you. But the point remains, "DMCA" section 512 is basically unconstitutional.

[kithrup.livejournal.com]

That is untrue.

You are allowed to respond to a DMCA take-down notice with a declaration that you believe it to be legal (it covers fair-use).

The problem is that the hosting site isn't required to put it back up (although they are required to take it down), and there is a minimum period before it can go up.

Also, despite it being required to be issued "in good faith," there are many, many bogus take-down notices, and only a handful have been treated as perjury.

That particular aspect of the DMCA is actually a pretty good aspect. It's the follow-up, and how it is treated, that is not good. Then there's the agreement YouTube has with various mega-content producers, which is not DMCA-related at all.

[johnreiher.livejournal.com]

I will politely disagree. DMCA's section 512 allows a copyright holder to merely say that something on a website is infringing their copyright and the ISP is forced to take it down, without notice to the person who posted the material.

Prior to the DMCA, a copyright holder had to go before a judge and present sufficient evidence that their copyright was being infringed, before a court order to remove the offending item from the website was issued. This prevented frivolous lawsuits and takedowns because the copyright holder didn't like being criticized.

ISPs are not required to tell the person who had their content removed that they can issue a counter-notice, and that the person filing the counter-notice must swear under threat of perjury that they are not infringing copyright. No such exhortation is required of the copyright holder. The only threat of perjury that a takedown notice can experience, is when a third party is issuing the takedown notice for the actual copyright holder without authorization.

DMCA takedown notices are basically saying that person who posted the content being challenged, is guilty of copyright infringement without benefit of trial or even the ability challenge that assertion in court. We have the presumption of innocence in the American legal system. This violates that rule of law.

[kithrup.livejournal.com]

You can disagree all you want; it doesn't affect reality.

A DMCA take-down notice is not "merely saying"; it is an affirmation, under oath.

Believe what you want.

[johnreiher.livejournal.com]

The best way to refute this is to quote the actual section from the law:§512(c)(3)(A):

(3) Elements of notification.—
(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

I've highlighted the only place in this section of the law where perjury is mention in regards to a takedown notice. It is only when you claim to be authorized to act on the behalf of the owner of the allegedly infringed material. Nothing else, so this law is totally dependent on the claim being made on good faith.

Case in point, the current rash of DMCA takedowns filed by the aforementioned Randy Queen are in fact against fair-use content that is not infringing. But because this law does not require legal proof to back up those claims, Mr. Queen can make as many frivolous takedown notices as he wants. The burden of proof is on the EscherGirls to prove that they were not infringing.

That's backwards of normal legal procedures.

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

James: "Let me help you into this vat of boiling oil."
James: "Let me hold your bag while that troll eats you."
James: "Oh, look, a handbasket. Let me help you into it, I see it's going down."

Always helpful. :D Yes.

[awesomeaud.livejournal.com]

They say the only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about....

'They' are wrong.