Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th Mar 2009 22:24 UTC
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.
Thread beginning with comment 354071
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Title vs. article
by zegenie on Fri 20th Mar 2009 08:15
in reply to "RE[2]: Title vs. article"
Member since:2005-12-31
RE[4]: Title vs. article
by averycfay on Fri 20th Mar 2009 11:04
in reply to "RE[3]: Title vs. article"
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
RE[3]: Title vs. article
by mabhatter on Fri 20th Mar 2009 16:11
in reply to "RE[2]: Title vs. article"
Member since:2005-07-17
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.
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!
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
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.