Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google's Information On DMCA Takedown Abuse

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the hassle-your-way-to-the-top dept.

Google 217

Binestar writes "According to a PC World article, Google has submitted a brief to New Zealand about its proposed copyright law (section 92A). "In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.""

cancel ×

217 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

DMCA took down goatse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27249785)

Dangerous [goatse.fr]

Now where will I get my porn?

PHIRST POAST GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27249797)

PHIRST POAST

GNAA - GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [encycloped...matica.com] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gaysexpornblog.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGERASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [encycloped...matica.com] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGERASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect toirc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2009 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

Re:PHIRST POAST GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250319)

We demand that you cease and decist this copyright infringement as outlined in the DMCA.

signed,

The Homosexual Bluegums' Alliance of America

p.s. First Post fail n00b. You'd best suck Gary Niger's dick and beg for forgiveness, niggerfaggot!

Re:PHIRST POAST GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA (-1, Offtopic)

Failed Physicist (1411173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250359)

Fail troll is fail, you didn't even manage to hit first post.

Well DUH!!! (5, Insightful)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 5 years ago | (#27249799)

Well DUH!!!

In a world where executives of companies that lose money expect as a matter of course to be paid millions of dollars of bonuses, it is a given that a tool such as the DMCA **WILL** be abused to silence opposition or competition...

Re:Well DUH!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27249851)

Damn straight. They can't afford to be seen as weak and shit!

Re:Well DUH!!! (4, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250355)

In a world where executives of companies that lose money expect as a matter of course to be paid millions of dollars of bonuses, it is a given that a tool such as the DMCA **WILL** be abused to silence opposition or competition...

Which is why this needed to be pointed out to politicians who can't think ahead for themselves.

Re:Well DUH!!! (1)

MaxInBxl (961814) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250657)

What on earth does that have to do with big bonuses?

Re:Well DUH!!! (2, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250717)

What on earth does that have to do with big bonuses?

Everything. The award of big bonuses for nonperformance is evidence of widespread moral and intellectual bankruptcy, which leads to other criminal behaviour, such as the misuse of the DMCA to attack competitors, among other things.

more importantly: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27249803)

25% of slashdot readers are now thinking about eating out my asshole.

Note to summary writer... (-1, Offtopic)

bensafrickingenius (828123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27249809)

"It's" == "It is" "Its" ==

Re:Note to summary writer... (1, Funny)

bensafrickingenius (828123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27249841)

oh shit -- they really oughta have a preview button or something.

"It's" == "It is"

"Its" == (possesive)

Re:Note to summary writer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27249947)

"Its" == (possessive)

In its submission, Google notes that ...

So the summary is correct...

Re:Note to summary writer... (0, Offtopic)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250273)

I found 2 occurences of the forms in question (actually 2 occurencese of one, and none of the other):

In its submission

about its proposed

Both are possessive. Both are correct. Did they change TFS? Or did OP screw up?

Re:Note to summary writer... (5, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250061)

they really oughta have a preview button or something.

Hoist by thine own petard. By the way it's "ought to". See, we can all be pedantic grammar nazis too.

It's easy. And yet... so pointless. Language is a means of communication. For millennia, it had no agreed, defined structure. Then along comes Dr Johnson, the world's first grammar nazi, and spoiled things for everyone by stifling creativity. Shakespeare, a man who -- you know -- was and is, widely renowned for being quite good at English, used to make words up all the time, and bend others to his will. You'd have him shot, no doubt. Or his books burned for grammar crimes.

Did you understand what the summary meant? Yes, you did. So... shut up.

Re:Note to summary writer... (1)

Cowmonaut (989226) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250349)

Completely off topic but very insightful. Thank you.

Re:Note to summary writer... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250775)

used to make words up all the time

Not the same thing. Are you suggesting that this was done for creativity rather than out of ignorance or carelessness? Keep championing mediocrity though. How bad could it possibly get?

Re:Note to summary writer... (4, Funny)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250215)

I get that wrong all the time even though I'm fully aware that the possessive of "it" is "its". It's not that I'm bad at English, I just don't give a fuck about that particular apostrophe.

In fact, if it wasn't for the squiggly red lines I wouldn't care to correct my mistyping. I just can't stand those awful squiggles, it's like they're Satan rising up from ashes to haunt me with the terror of a thousand mad-libs...

Re:Note to summary writer... (1)

tigerhawkvok (1010669) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250721)

I don't even notice squiggles anymore. They squiggle on HTML, they squiggle on computer terms (agregator), they squiggle on biology and physics terms (saurichian, Hermetian) ... I just can't win.

Re:Note to summary writer... (0)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#27249927)

Now show me one sentence where the meaning becomes different depending on which way you spell it(')s. Any sentence. Don't have one? Still feel like you know something important?

Re:Note to summary writer... (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250027)

Do you know what makes money the root of all evil? It[']s love.

Could mean "Love, in general, is the answer to the question" or "Love of money is what makes it bad."

See? Its absolutely possible to make a sentence where, when the apostrophe is misused, it's presence or absence matters.

Re:Note to summary writer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250191)

Good example. And 3 how you then misused the apostrophe right there in the last sentence.

Re:Note to summary writer... (2, Funny)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250931)

If you look carefully, you'll see that artor3 misused both apostrophes in that last sentence.

Re:Note to summary writer... (4, Funny)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27251113)

And believe you me, it was not easy finding a way of phrasing that that gave me the opportunity to mess them both up. =P

Re:Note to summary writer... (1)

ydrol (626558) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250447)

Unrelated to the point being made but IIRC it's "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." Not of all evil. But do carry on :)

Re:Note to summary writer... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250693)

The word "kinds" is redundant, unless of course you can find an evil that is not a kind of evil...

Money's love (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250569)

Its love? What does money love?

Re:Money's love (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250797)

Being saved by switching to Geico?

Re:Note to summary writer... (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250039)

Its a thing and it's a thing (off the top of my head). Totally different meaning

Re:Note to summary writer... (5, Funny)

michaeldot (751590) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250059)

U r right, it really dusnt matter how u spell. Its not like their are standards to maintain. Or that its just plane irritating to sea.

(Pedants aside, a large proportion of Slashdot readers are programmers whose brains sound an alarm bell when a sentence doesn't parse correctly.)

Re:Note to summary writer... (1)

taucross (1330311) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250793)

(Pedants aside, a large proportion of Slashdot readers are programmers whose brains sound an alarm bell when a sentence doesn't parse correctly.)

Some slashdot compilers are more verbose than others, it seems.

Re:Note to summary writer... (3, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250143)

Good point. I never thought of things that way- it's just needless formatting. I mean, taking things one step further now, I guess it doesn't really matter if you don't
haveanyspacesat
allinyoursenten
ces.Iguessyoudo'
n'treallyneedth
oseafterall,ori
nfactorevenpunc.
tuationatallorc
apitallettersim
eanalltheconten
tisthereandther.
estisjustformat
tingdesignedtom'
akethesentencee
asiertoreadandr
emoveambiguitie
sbutimeanheyify
oucouldntbeboth-
eredspendingthe
typetypingoutyo.
ursentenceaccur
atelyandmakingi
teasytoreadwhys
houlditaketheti
metoreadit-

Edit: Even the filter won't let me post sentences like this without putting in some junk.

Re:Note to summary writer... (4, Interesting)

RodgerDodger (575834) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250265)

This is exactly how people used to write. The use of a punctuation marker between words didn't catch on in Latin until sometime between 600AD and 800AD. A lot of punctuation marks, and grammar in general, is a relatively recent fad.

Re:Note to summary writer... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250769)

Yeah let's just keep doing what people in the past did. It's worked out so well before.

Re:Note to summary writer... (1)

baxissimo (135512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250173)

How about:

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas was our sign to get in the car and go shopping.

Oops, I meant 'its'. Yeh, there's only one way to parse it, but you don't find out which is the right way till the end of the sentence. (And don't ask me what 'it' is referring to there).

I think I agree with your general sentiment though. Special cases aren't special enough to justify completely breaking the regular rules. Both meanings should be written "it's". And like so many other things in English it would be the writer's responsibility to write sentences that parse unambiguously.

Re:Note to summary writer... (5, Funny)

StarsAreAlsoFire (738726) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250289)

Now show me one sentence where the meaning becomes different depending on which way you spell it(')s. Any sentence. Don't have one? Still feel like you know something important?

I feel it's nuts.

Re:Note to summary writer... (1)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250945)

Too fucking shay!

Re:Note to summary writer... (1)

StarsAreAlsoFire (738726) | more than 5 years ago | (#27251047)

I must admit that my comment comes from a /. sig

Re:Note to summary writer... (1)

jedwidz (1399015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250549)

The unwanted child cries unheard, it's life ends too soon.

Re:Note to summary writer... (4, Insightful)

glowworm (880177) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250865)

Now show me one sentence where the meaning becomes different depending on which way you spell it(')s.

Never drink wine before its time. (Don't drink pre-vintage wine)
Never drink wine before it's time. (Don't drink before 12pm)

Are those overlapping percentages? (5, Interesting)

JeanPaulBob (585149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27249877)

I didn't see any more detail in TFA than this:

"In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.""

57% are from businesses targeting competitors, and only 37% are invalid? What does that mean? 1.) That up to 20% of notices are from businesses who are catching their competitors in the act? 2.) Or is it not 37% of total notices? 3.) Or am I getting mixed up on something?

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27249939)

37% of total notices. The same people who go to the emergency room for belly button lint and call 911 when McDonald's is out of "chicken" mcnuggets probably file a DMCA letter at google when their friends draw a penis on their facebook wall.

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250227)

57% are from businesses targeting competitors, and only 37% are invalid?

That is indeed poorly phrased, but I think it was that a third of all notices were demonstratably invalid. That might be all from the 57% of competition, and the other %20 is highly questionable but not factually wrong.

Google probably didn't want to overstate anything, so that lobbyists would have nothing to prove wrong and convince lawmakers to ignore google completely. "They said all that 57% was invalid, but that's not true! We had one (coughalmostcough) get upheld in court a few years ago! They're liars, here's some campaign contributions, just forget about those wanks."

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250445)

The way I read it is this: 57% were companies trying to stifle competition, plus 37% of notices were not (valid) copyright claims. Note the emphasis. That means 37% of the claims were about things that had nothing whatsoever to do with copyright. Seems about right to me. The DMCA is so badly abused that it's not even funny....

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (1)

JeanPaulBob (585149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250511)

That makes sense. But see my other new comment--it turns out that the 37% is sites outside America.

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27251157)

Ah. Even more entertaining that way.

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250493)

80% of all statistics are exaggerated...

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250917)

80% of all statistics are exaggerated...

95% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250969)

99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (5, Informative)

JeanPaulBob (585149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250503)

Aha! I found the info here [usc.edu] , through a link provided in someone else's comment. TFA is a bit off, it seems to me. The 37% figure is notices about sites outside America. And there were three other types of "flaws":

In this study, we traced the use of the Section 512 takedown process and considered how the usage patterns we found were likely to affect expression or other activities on the Internet. The second level of analysis grew out of the fact that we observed a surprisingly high incidence of flawed takedowns:

  • Thirty percent of notices demanded takedown for claims that presented an obvious question for a court (a clear fair use argument, complaints about uncopyrightable material, and the like);
  • Notices to traditional ISP's included a substantial number of demands to remove files from peer-to-peer networks (which are not actually covered under the takedown statute, and which an OSP can only honor by terminating the target's Internet access entirely); and
  • One out of 11 included significant statutory flaws that render the notice unusable (for example, failing to adequately identify infringing material).

In addition, we found some interesting patterns that do not, by themselves, indicate concern, but which are of concern when combined with the fact that one third of the notices depended on questionable claims:

  • Over half--57%--of notices sent to Google to demand removal of links in the index were sent by businesses targeting apparent competitors;
  • Over a third--37%--of the notices sent to Google targeted sites apparently outside the United States.

[bold added]

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250581)

and we really should be worrying because thats 94 precent of them

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250641)

Actually, the article is correct, it's Google's footnote (which the article essentially quotes) which is wrong.

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (4, Insightful)

holloway (46404) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250679)

Actually the source in this case is from the TCF submissions [tcf.org.nz] to do with New Zealand's 3-strike law Section 92A [creativefreedom.org.nz] .

Section 92A calls for internet disconnection based on accusations of copyright infringement without a trial and without any evidence held up to court scrutiny. There's no due process in this law, and it expands the definition of an ISP to include not just conventional ISPs but practically any shared internet connection or website -- meaning that libraries, schools, businesses, organisations are all now considered ISPs.

There is no way of abdictating responsibility to experts right now (Eg. the courts) and these new "ISPs" are expected to decide on claims of (1) data forensics and (2) copyright law. Further these new "ISPs" now act under the threat of being secondary copyright infingers because they allow infringement on their network. In practice it's all weighted against due process and fairness.

I'm from a group of artists against this law called the Creative Freedom Foundation [creativefreedom.org.nz] . This law was done in the name of protecting art and creativity but we don't want bad copyright law done in our name. As artists we're tryin to take care of society and what these ridiculous companies are pushing for. We ran a 'Blackout' campaign that was quite popular, and a Copywrong Song [creativefreedom.org.nz] , and we've just launched a video series called What About Us? [creativefreedom.org.nz] with major NZ artists talking about how they don't want this law.

In previous /. threads about this I talk about 10 big problems with Section 92A [slashdot.org] .

And we're not just trying to get this law repealed, but we're suggesting practical alternatives [creativefreedom.org.nz] to S92A.

If you have any questions please post them in response to this comment. It may take me a while to respond to them though.

Thanks!

Re:Are those overlapping percentages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250799)

"over one third (37%) of notices"

Learn to fucking read.

In Ancient Times (4, Informative)

Anenome (1250374) | more than 5 years ago | (#27249901)

There was a time when music was sold as sheet music. Somehow Joplin was making a $100,000 a week in the 1920's, even though it's fairly trivial to simply hand-copy someone-else's work.

I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but copyright law is increasingly working more against society than in its interests, and this story just goes to prove that yet again. When laws hurt more than they help, they need to be changed or abolished.

Re:In Ancient Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27249959)

When laws hurt more than they help, they need to be changed or abolished.

Woah there buddy, let's not get too controversial!

Re:In Ancient Times (3, Insightful)

Conception (212279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27249975)

Not that I don't agree but your example doesn't take into account that now its fairly trivial to copy that sheet music and distribute it to thousands if not millions at no cost to the distributor in time or money.

Re:In Ancient Times (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250101)

True, but this is why we should rely on good studies.
As it stand, it seems that, if anything, illegal online music distributors are helping sell music.
10 years ago I thought the music industry would be dead by now because everything would be available for free. Weirdly counter intuitive, but there you go.

I'm actually happy to see how things have turned out, overall.

Re:In Ancient Times (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250249)

True, but this is why we should rely on good studies.
As it stand, it seems that, if anything, illegal online music distributors are helping sell music.

Obligatory Citation [bbc.co.uk]

Re:In Ancient Times (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250005)

Thank you captain obvious. Copyright was originally designed to create a business model and has continued to now serving exactly the same end.

Re:In Ancient Times (4, Interesting)

rossz (67331) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250023)

Have you ever copied sheet music by hand? It's a pain in the ass. So it's no surprise that in a time when a photocopier did not exist people would willingly pay a small amount to avoid that tedium. I know my high school almost got in trouble for photocopying sheet music. We spent a day in the music room pulling all the copies and tossing them in the garbage. The extreme high cost of sheet music during my school days was a major contributing factor in copyright infringement. Gee, where have I heard this before?

Re:In Ancient Times (4, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250363)

Have you ever copied sheet music by hand? It's a pain in the ass.

You're doing it wrong.

Re:In Ancient Times (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 5 years ago | (#27251147)

I find a huge amount of sadness in this, after hearing for years and people saying:
KIDS! Learn music!

While the people producing sheet music reply: Only if you pay us one hundred, million dollars...

The sad thing in that, is part of the reason why the local middle school near me killed their music program. When I went through(more then 15yrs ago) everything was photocopied in some form. Now it only seems that the highschools have a music program which is a terrible shame, and even those are on the verge of dying for the same reason.

I know of a few preforming orchestra's here in Canada that are now dead due to the ever-ever-ever increasing costs of sheet music as well.

Re:In Ancient Times (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250041)

How, exactly, does this story prove the law hurts more than it helps? It certainly proves that the law is abused, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the abuses outweigh all the good.

Re:In Ancient Times (2, Informative)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250257)

....but that doesn't necessarily mean that the abuses outweigh all the good.

57% were businesses targeting competitors. I take that to mean that they were trying to shut down their competitor's production/sales, rather than having a legitimate beef against a product.

If so, that means only 43% are legitimate claims, or even less if the 37% that aren't valid copyright claims isn't just a subset of the 57%.

I'd say >57% abusive, 43% not abusive means that the abuses outweigh the good.

Re:In Ancient Times (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250341)

Yes, because every single event ever has the exact same value or harm to society. If a new law is passed that leads to 100 smiles and 99 murders, well 100 > 99, so it's good!

Re:In Ancient Times (3, Insightful)

emjay88 (1178161) | more than 5 years ago | (#27251091)

57% were businesses targeting competitors. I take that to mean that they were trying to shut down their competitor's production/sales, rather than having a legitimate beef against a product.

That's a flawed interpretation, doesn't it make sense that a vast majority of claims were against competitors? If someone is breaching copyright on your products for commercial purposes, they are selling your product too, making them a competitor. That means that the other 43% are probably made up partially by the 37%, with the rest being valid claims against non-competitors, which to me says private entities (ie, not commercial ones).

I find it surprising that there aren't more claims against competitors, given that if someone is violating copyright on your work (and then selling it), that pretty much makes them a competitor by definition, if they weren't already.

Re:In Ancient Times (5, Insightful)

cperciva (102828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250043)

There was a time when music was sold as sheet music. Somehow Joplin was making a $100,000 a week in the 1920's, even though it's fairly trivial to simply hand-copy someone-else's work.

Sheet music is cheaper than the cost of copying by hand. This doesn't mean that copyright laws were useless though -- without them, someone else could have set up their own printing press and started (cheaply) printing their own copies of Joplin's work.

Until recently, the only marginally profitable (in the economic sense) form of copyright violation was mass reproduction, requiring extensive capital costs. This made it easy to enforce copyright laws: You can't sell many thousands of copies of anything without attracting attention.

Everything changed when it became possible to make a profit by making a single illegal copy of something.

Re:In Ancient Times (4, Informative)

matrixskp (629075) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250105)

When laws hurt more than they help, they need to be changed or abolished.

Or in this case just not established in the first place. Thankfully the New Zealand Prime Minister has delayed the implementation of Section 92a and it may well be suspended. A big thank you has to go out to all those who took part in the Internet Blackout NZ [creativefreedom.org.nz] ... blacking out NZ websites and profiles on popular social networking sites in protest of the proposed changes.

Re:In Ancient Times (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250243)

Somehow Joplin was making a $100,000 a week in the 1920's, even though it's fairly trivial to simply hand-copy someone-else's work.

Have you ever transcribed a thick piano score by hand? It's a bitch and a half, and before the copy machine, you'd have to buy pre-printed musical score anyway (or spend even MORE time making it with a ruler!).

Running this stuff through a printing press that's already set is absolute cake, and setting up an operation to print this stuff when you don't have the rights to it would look VERY conspicuous.

Something to add on. (2, Insightful)

nuclearrrabit (986010) | more than 5 years ago | (#27249985)

"The New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, stated that the stronger copyright laws, including the controversial section 92a, were required for New Zealand to be able to negotiate a free trade agreement with America."

Re:Something to add on. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250065)

Its easy to blame the yanks but if their requirements are the same for NZ and China then NZ must already be compliant.

Re:Something to add on. (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250391)

Its easy to blame the yanks but if their requirements are the same for NZ and China then NZ must already be compliant.

"if their requirements are the same"

They aren't.

Re:Something to add on. (4, Insightful)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250159)

Intesting isn't it? I reckon if a whole lot of countries stopped pursuing free trade agreements with the US and instead pursued China and pegged their currencies to the Euro, the US would be jumping through hoops to woo back countries like New Zealand and Australia. It would be the end of draconian copyright laws and a whole bunch of other ills.

I just don't get why everyone is still dealing in the greenback given the financial crisis. Sure it used to be dangerous to switch to euros (think 1st gulf war dangerous) but these days, who cares? Especially if China and Europe benefit from a switch, it may even force the US to finally pull it's head in.

But it'll never happen....

Re:Something to add on. (1)

Rangataua (820853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250267)

Interestingly enough, New Zealand already has a free trade agreement with China.

Re:Something to add on. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27251023)

New Zealand already has a Free Trade Agreement with China. And just last week the US halted any progress towards a Free Trade Agreement with them.

NZ just isn't large enough for the US to give a shit.

So... (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27249993)

DMCA notices are filed under penalty of perjury. Has anybody, ever, even a single case, been punished for filing a false takedown?

*crickets*

Re:So... (2, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250055)

Purjury is difficult to prosecute because you need to prove it to be willful or some such. Of course, I'm of slashdot school of legal philosophy AKA "talk outta ma ass".

Venom Fang X (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250121)

Look up Venom Fang X on Youtube.

Re:Venom Fang X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250331)

irrelevant, that situation never saw the light of a court room. He was simply bullied by the threat of a suit being filed.

Re:So... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250125)

You need to follow up, and sadly most people don't want to bother. They would rather buckle then do the simple paperwork involved in rebutting a claim. If they do file, then person the sent the original DMCA goes away, and who want's to press charge at that point?
well, I would but I'm not normal.

DMCA Thoughts (2, Interesting)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250369)

That's a good question. I think the penalty of perjury clause serves as a mild deterrent, and I think to an extent it does work. It takes a pretty dishonest person to sign on the dotted line, under the penalty of perjury, things to which the person is attesting falsely. Of course, that doesn't stop unscrupulous individuals who use the same logic - that the penalty is really not enforced.

I don't hate the DMCA like the vast majority of /. members do. I think legitimate copyrights, trademarks and patents deserve reasonable protection in an information-based economy. Yes, the Act went far too far with the anti-circumvention clauses that obviously thwart innovation. However, in the electronic world where bad actors can instantly steal and widely disseminate other people's work and pass it off as their own - and even masquerade as the owner of the work maliciously, it is very helpful to have a method within the law for protecting ownership rights short of always involving lawyers at substantial and on-going costs. Every once in a while my organization has to send out a DMCA take down notice against those who are using our trademarks to sell counterfeit merchandise. If the DMCA were not in force and we had to file a lawsuit over every small act of infringement, we would not be able to afford to protect our rights. On the other hand, we once also faced a scum bag lawyer who fraudulently abused the DMCA (under the penalty of perjury) and caused us huge problems because of the incompetence of Network Solutions. We had to remedy that situation in court.

The DMCA is a legal tool that can either be used properly or misused. The most important thing for web hosts and other service providers to do is to abide by the protocol established by the Act for handling take-downs and counter-notices and to publish a DMCA policy that recognizes that protocol. Unfortunately, in hotly contested situations many web hosts will be more responsive to the threats of abusive lawyers than to the letter of the federal law and their own stated policies. A lot of providers don't publish any information on how they handle DMCA notices, and that is a problem. YMMV.

Re:DMCA Thoughts (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250473)

That's a good question. I think the penalty of perjury clause serves as a mild deterrent, and I think to an extent it does work. It takes a pretty dishonest person to sign on the dotted line, under the penalty of perjury, things to which the person is attesting falsely.

The perjury clause is so useless as to be limited. I could send a DMCA request to anyone's provider, claiming that file X on their website infringed my copyright on work Y, and as long as I actually owned work Y, I would not have committed perjury -- even if I knew damn well file X had nothing to do with it.

Every once in a while my organization has to send out a DMCA take down notice against those who are using our trademarks to sell counterfeit merchandise.

Congratulations, your organization is a DMCA abuser. DMCA takedowns are for copyright violation, not trademark violation.

it is very helpful to have a method within the law for protecting ownership rights short of always involving lawyers at substantial and on-going costs

Indeed, it is helpful -- for abusers. The people abused, on the other hand, are shut down with no recourse other than to involve lawyers at substantial cost; the counternotice basically says "Meet me at high noon in Federal Court". Furthermore, if the abuser does sue, the DMCA provides the equivalent of an automatic restraining order, which, given the length of court cases, means the abuser essentially wins regardless of the outcome.

Re:DMCA Thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27251081)

Gosh, it couldn't be that the notices are actually regarding the sale of counterfeit goods ... counterfeit goods which would violate copyright.

Re:So... (1)

davburns (49244) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250425)

The DMCA notices I've seen only swear to be authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf, and/or that there is an exclusive license which the alleged file sharer doesn't have. The details about IP addresses, protocols, and timestamps are (at best) represented as a "good faith belief." It's never been clear to me if those sending the notices are making any claim that the

Do you have a reference for your claim that the entire notice must be filed under penalty of perjury? I have some that are completely implausible, and others that for which I have some doubt. If this were indeed perjury, that would probably be interesting to lawyers defending clients from similar evidence.

Re:So... (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250683)

I'm not sure if it is a statutory requirement or not; but the following language is extraordinarily common in DMCA takedown notices:

"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

From here [copyright.gov] ,

"(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."

makes it sound as though the minimum requirements may be slightly looser. IANAL, though.

Re:So... (2, Interesting)

hengist (71116) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250903)

>DMCA notices are filed under penalty of perjury. Has anybody, ever, even a single case,
> been punished for filing a false takedown?

As I understand it, the perjury clause refers to the statement of the notifier that they
represent or are truly acting for the rights holder, not that what they claim is true. I
think that only requires a "good faith" belief that the material they wish taken down is
infringing.

But what do we do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250119)

This is just one more reasons why section 92A is nothing but trouble for 99% of the population. But how do we go about solving the problem. Moaning about it doesn't seem to have much effect.

Re:But what do we do? (4, Insightful)

endymion.nz (1093595) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250239)

Um, have you been paying attention? We have been moaning about this for the last year, some of us (me, maybe not you) wrote to our electoral candidates asking what they would do about it, and now the National government has suspended the enactment of the law for review. Seems like moaning about it is all we can do, but at least it is having an effect!

Content of Submission (5, Informative)

Rangataua (820853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250211)

The content of the Google submission to TCF can be found here [tcf.org.nz] . Some of the other submission (including the Auckland District Law Society and the Radio New Zealand submissions) are worth a read.

The government needs to stand its ground (1)

dwhitaker (1500855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250357)

Since the advent of the internet and the laws governing it and how it affects copyright, the government has passed laws which turn the judicial system into an arm of major corporations.

Copyright needs to be protected - as a photographer I know this well. However, the rights of the populous must also be protected: isn't that ostensibly the role of government?

Re:The government needs to stand its ground (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250845)

...However, the rights of the populous must also be controlled: isn't that ostensibly the role of government?

Fixed that for you.

Signed,
RIAA

doesn't google like the DMCA? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250491)

I thought that google liked the DCMA as it protects them from lawsuits and other more extensive harassment. As it is now, all the have to do is take down the content. If this wasn't there they would be overrun with lawsuits. The only thing it seems to fight are things that might hurt it's ad business.

Re:doesn't google like the DMCA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250527)

Exactly. If there were no DMCA, Google would have to lobby for it (or sell Youtube).

data driven law making? (2, Interesting)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250533)

Do you think this would be enough to force the DCMA to be kneecapped? Clearly this was not it's intended purpose so the law needs to change.

If these numbers are true... (1)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250625)

If these numbers turn out to be accurate, it shows rampant abuse of the DMCA-just like many of us predicted. It shows that over half the takedown notices are done for anti-competitive reasons and almost 40% of them are inaccurate and/or fradulent.

My fear is that-that any law that is put forth to replace (fix?) the DMCA's problems might well more Draconian then the DMCA itself. It's as if the bad known is better then the possibly worse unknown

Couldn't Google just BUY New Zealand? (0)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27250689)

OR is their stock too low for that now.

Re:Couldn't Google just BUY New Zealand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27251109)

They could probably still afford it, property prices are down here too, although not as low as in parts of the US. However, that may not be all that relevant...it seems to me that what Google has done is kindly make a submission opposing a bad law which is currently under review, partly because many people are waking up to the idea that it is in fact be a bad law. So I guess props to Google for standing up on the side of righteousness. Maybe if the new government goes ahead and passes the old governments bad draft law we will need Google to buy the place to rescue us. If it does go ahead there will certainly be plenty of people looking out for ways of getting it used against people who richly deserve it, like politicians.

pI thank you fSor your time (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27250863)

EFNet, and aaply
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>