21–30 of 40 posts
Detailed story, very helpful. You nerd baited me, so I went ahead and read 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged in…
Missing detail about DMCA here is that you can file a counter-notice. You can reply and say "this is fair use" or "I own this", and the service provider will 1) forward the notice, 2) restore the content unless the claimed copyright owner sues. It's not perfect, and the system can still be abused. But a DMCA takedown isn't necessarily an impossible burden that requires the recipient to do sleuthing to determine the r…
The counter-notice requires you to provide your details to the filer. The process is often abused just to gain this information, with the complainant dropping the whole thing after receiving these details.
I didn't have to do this when I received a bogus takedown notice for a YouTube video.
But I'm not in the US and I don't know if YouTube's process varies by jurisdiction.
> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they receive. It has long seemed crazy to me that, as a society, we’ve allowed large companies to argue that they can’t do basic things that their smaller competitors have to. Provide customer support. Assess legal challenges. Et cetera. Should we not rather say: you ha…
> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they receive. It has long seemed crazy to me that, as a society, we’ve allowed large companies to argue that they can’t do basic things that their smaller competitors have to. Provide customer support. Assess legal challenges. Et cetera. Should we not rather say: you ha…
There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era.
You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or not are thorny questions where two reasonable people might disagree.
That's why the law requires platforms to preemptively take down media if someone complains. It's because copyright, in the US and most of the world, is actually impossible to determine for private parties and minor works. You need a court and two sets of lawyers to figure out who actually did what. As the article says:
> The status of RODIK and the ownership of its rights are currently unclear. This makes it likely that Cookie’s Bustle is an “orphan work”, a copyrighted work where the owner is either unknown or cannot be located.
Copyright reforms requiring registration could fix this, but I don't think things are going to be calm enough to allow it for decades. I get that it's trendy to complain about big companies getting this wrong, but it's stupid to blame them for trying to survive under the current rules.
> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they receive. It has long seemed crazy to me that, as a society, we’ve allowed large companies to argue that they can’t do basic things that their smaller competitors have to. Provide customer support. Assess legal challenges. Et cetera. Should we not rather say: you ha…
Amen to that. Larger companies should face more requirements than small ones. And if they can't meet them, great! That just means they can't be large. Companies should be smaller on average than they currently are.
(ok maybe there are several thousand things, but you get what I mean)
Detailed story, very helpful. You nerd baited me, so I went ahead and read 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged in…
The word "knowingly" makes getting even with takedown trolls almost impossible because you have to prove their intent.
I think bringing this in a jurisdiction with sensible judges - Northern Cal, SDNY, Delaware, does not look impossible to me. And, it only takes one win to radically change the economics of these trolls — it seems worth doing, is all I’m saying!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "knowingly" makes getting even with takedown trolls almost impossible because you have to prove their intent.
Knowingly isn’t intent. It’s knowledge. Both the sender (this UK service company) and the troll fit knowingly for almost any definition I can imagine in this story. The UK sender triggered it on a second notice, after the museum had responded. The troll knows they do not own the copyright. I think bringing this in a jurisdiction with sensible judges - Northern Cal, SDNY, Delaware, does not look impossible to me. And,…
> It’s the safest option, because at a certain scale, it is impractical for large platforms to evaluate the validity of every single takedown request they receive. It has long seemed crazy to me that, as a society, we’ve allowed large companies to argue that they can’t do basic things that their smaller competitors have to. Provide customer support. Assess legal challenges. Et cetera. Should we not rather say: you ha…
> Assess legal challenges. There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era. You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or…
It has been recognized by early Georgists as monopolistic and thus problematic.
That's why you see rent seeking behaviors and abuses. It's not new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely all circumstantial evidence, but from all the recent stuff about Cookie's Bustle we know that whoever it is: a) Is willing to at least tell the UK government that he's Keisuke Harigai (see this UK trademark registration: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00... ) b) Is comfortable with registering companies in shady tax havens and knows his way around international IP registrati…
The UK Filing is probably the most interesting. However, its hard to unravel the mail forwarder. If a mail forwarder let you establish a forward in someone elses name it might be an easy way to pretend to be someone else for the purposes of UK Trademarks. That said, could also just be convenient for filing outside of japan, japanese street addresses are notorious. The most convincing argument in favor of Harigai is w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Assess legal challenges. There will be nothing but pain and frustration if you ask corporations to try and supplant the courts. Copyright law is old and does not make provisions for the modern era. You get a copyright when you create a work and it does not require any kind of registration. Establishing who has a copyright, if the work is copyrightable in the first place, or if an alleged infringement is fair use or…
Copyright is a special privilege that usually monopolizes certain information. It has been recognized by early Georgists as monopolistic and thus problematic. That's why you see rent seeking behaviors and abuses. It's not new.
The point of copyright is that it's a legitimate form of ownership. It's an acknowledgement that someone who creates a work should own it.
It's not any more monopolistic than owning a car, for example.