It might seem like a New Zealand-only story, but the recently proposed law in New Zealand that would force internet service providers to cut off web access for those accused of violating copyright law has led to an interesting statement from Google about the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
The long slippery slope - the worse part are those who are taking part in the discussion over information technology, end user rights and consumer rights are those who have no idea as to he nature of the discourse.
It remind me of a 'Information Technology' debate in the 2008 election - there was only one party ('The Green Party', a party I didn't support btw) that put up a candidate on television who was able to grasp the issues of DRM, net neutrality, privacy rights and so on. The rest of the other party representatives didn't have the slightest clue as the issues that were playing out. The other parties simply put candidates forward who re-enforced the line as developed by the litigation junkies from certain lobby groups.
I'm not hopeful, therefore, that there will be a sudden outbreak in common sense given who is funneling who with information in these select committee's - and the scare tactic of 'intellectual property' is being thrown around as politicians think that 'intellectual property' is New Zealand's key to future development and thus they feel as though they need to come down on violators like a tonne of bricks.
Edited 2009-03-19 22:37 UTC
Member since:2008-08-19
You thinking of Nandor Tanczos? Yeah, that was my impression too - whatever odd beliefs he might have, he did seem to have a good understanding of this kind of thing.
Member since:2005-07-06
You thinking of Nandor Tanczos? Yeah, that was my impression too - whatever odd beliefs he might have, he did seem to have a good understanding of this kind of thing.
Na, it was Metiria Turei ( http://www.greens.org.nz/people/metiriaturei ) - when I was heaping phrase on her; it wasn't because her explanations were great but because comparatively she at least had some grasp of the issues and willing to investigate and lean about them.
Member since:
2009-03-19
Section 92A is a great example of how a few interested parties with lots of money can influence a government. What is surprising is that although our government has just changed, to one seemingly less corrupt, that this law will by all accounts still go ahead.
Google is absolutely right - the law is open to abuse, just like our anti-smacking law. But for bigger companies, who have their own servers, there is no threat from having to move ISPs, as their email addresses and websites are independent. But for the majority of the country's businesses, which are small one/two man operations, it will be easy to kill their internet lifeline as they have a business email address with a big ISP. When that gets cut off, they have to start from scratch with all of their advertising, business cards, etc.
It is probably time to start scoping these companies, and selling them web services, as they cannot control what their employees or kids do with their net connection.
Member since:2005-11-16
Hi,
Immediately after this law goes ahead, every internet user needs to accuse the New Zealand Goverment of violating thousands of copyrights; and then we all need to insist that the New Zealand Goverment is disconnected from the internet (in accordance with their own law). This needs to be done repeatedly (each time they manage to reconnect), until the law is changed to something that's at least slightly sane.
-Brendan
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-04-23
What will happen, is that businesses will move their hosting of email etc to foreign countries so all they need locally is a single connection.
I sure wouldn't host business critical systems in a country with laws that are so dangerous to my business.
The next version of the "DDoS Mafia" will just send copyright infringement notices...
Member since:
2009-02-19
Just to chip in, I also completely agree with the selected passage. I.P. laws can be both a benefit and a hindrance; they have to be carefully balanced. I wish the idea had more exposure, that an overly restrictive and draconian I.P. enforcement regime can have just as negative an effect as rampant piracy - or can easily be worse!
Oh, and in before someone points out google's obvious interest in the issue.
Member since:
2006-05-26
I've been in the process of setting up an online business, and found, to my horror, that the TOS of 1and1.com (a big host provider both in the US and also Germany, I know at least that much, probably other places as well) have it such that anyone claiming a copyright violation may result in them completely terminating your account with zero recourse or even a chance to back up your data before your account is terminated! I'm not certain if this is limited to shared hosting (which I'm currently using) or all hosting they sell, but that's enough to scare any sane person hoping to base their living off of something, absolutely spitless: hence, why I'm researching other options, since my online business will include forums, and all that entails.
Member since:2008-04-15
now that would suck. it seems to happen on youtube all the time where videos are reported for no reason other than someone is embarrassed by it's contents.
There seems to be no judgment, just a "better to be safe than sorry" approach. While that's probably because youtube et al, would get thousands of those reports a minute it allows major abuse of the system.
The bigger Google and internet companies seem to grow, the easier it is for them to just drop customers without trial. Guilty until you stop emailing them begging for a trial.
Member since:2007-04-23
Member since:2006-05-26
There's nothing in the TOS of 1and1.com that mentions anything about a claim being proven, as I stated above: it just has to be claimed. From a business POV, that's even less than worthless, that's an incredible liability, especially coupled with the fact that they can just terminate the account completely, with zero access left to your data that's hosted: lost posts for the regular website, and I'd wager also lost data from the eStore. But, as long as there's no issue they have with you, they'll take your money!
Member since:
2005-09-10
Member since:2006-01-14
Member since:2005-08-29
That's nice, but the article never says that the majority of DMCA take down notices are illegitimate. Just because a competitor files a notice, that doesn't necessarily make the notice invalid. In fact, they specify exactly how what percentage are invalid: 37%. Last time I checked 37% isn't "most". Yet another sensationalist, inaccurate headline from osnews. Big surprise.
Member since:2005-12-31
Member since:2005-08-29
AND it is only to take out the competition.
Where in the article does it say that?
How is it at all surprising that most DMCA complaints are against competitors? I mean let's say someone copies webmd's articles and hosts them w/ads somewhere else. Aren't they now competing with webmd? If webmd files a DMCA complaint, they are now filing it against a competitor. (btw, no relation to webmd, was just using it as an example)
Edited 2009-03-20 11:04 UTC
Member since:2005-07-17
37% may not be "most" but it is a clear problem with the system. Imagine if 37% of the time shops called police for shoplifting the cops turned their pockets and found the person really didn't shoplift! The New Zealand law seems to mirror the DMCA in most respects, and Google is a pretty good example of how the DMCA is used.
Somebody mentioned that the DMCA is "unfair" in how Google implements it.. but that's how the law is written. Google's hosting liability is reduced if they act quickly. You can appeal the charge and get your stuff put back up but it's on the person posting the content to prove it doesn't infringe once it's pointed out to Google. Again, the New Zealand law seems to mirror this requirement, only permanently kicking you off so you can't appeal!
Like Google posted 57% of takedowns are aimed at businesses. While a good portion are surely infringing, a good portion are taken down for the "same words" or for resale when the original company doesn't like it. Look at all the name brand handbag sites that get taken down for pictures of the handbags, even when it's just somebody selling their own personal one or two. Look at it another way.. 37% of business related take downs may be items posted under "fair use" that businesses' lawyers should know are non-infringing (pictures of products for resale, repair shops, etc)
Let's try an example and see who bites!!
harry_potter_order_of_the_phoenix.avi
Used Guess! Handbags for sale half price!
Member since:2006-01-26
Well, if you read the article, you'll see the second paragraph states:
"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."
Google is making this statement.
Member since:
2005-09-27
Member since:
2005-07-06
