SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Charter Countersues Music Companies for Sending Inaccurate DMCA Notices
Internet provider Charter Communications has submitted its answer to the piracy liability lawsuit filed by major record labels. The ISP denies many of the allegations and also strikes back. In a recent filing, it accuses the music companies of violating copyright law by sending DMCA notices for content they don't own.
Last year, several major music companies sued Charter Communications, one of the largest Internet providers in the US with 22 million subscribers. Helped by the RIAA, Capitol Records, Warner Bros, Sony Music, and others accused Charter of deliberately turning a blind eye to its pirating subscribers.
[...] This week Charter replied to the complaint, which was amended in February, denying most of these allegations. In addition, the ISP is countersuing the music companies on two issues. Firstly, Charter requests a declaratory judgment from the court, ruling that it's not contributorily liable for the alleged infringements of its customers. Among other things, it points out that it doesn't host or promote any infringing activity, nor can it detect piracy on its network. Other ISPs have issued similar counterclaims in the past. However, Charter goes a step further by also countersuing the music companies for violating copyright law themselves.
Charter's partial answer to amended complaint.
Mixtape Service Sues RIAA for Sending False Takedown Notices
Popular hip-hop mixtape site and app Spinrilla has sued the RIAA for sending false takedown notices. The company believes that the music group relies on text searches, without properly checking if the content is infringing. The mixtape site informs the court that these faulty notices harm its goodwill and reputation, so is requesting damages in return.
[...] Spinrilla believes that the RIAA is sending takedown requests based on text searches, which results in inaccurate takedown notices. To stop this from happening, the site has filed a lawsuit at a federal court in Georgia, accusing the RIAA of sending false DMCA takedowns.
"Defendant is sending DMCA takedown notices some of which materially misrepresent that audio files uploaded by certain Spinrilla's users infringe sound recordings owned by RIAA's members," Spinrilla writes.
These inaccurate takedown requests harm the goodwill and reputation of the mixtape site, Spinrilla notes. It's a waste of resources and can also result in user accounts being terminated without good cause.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday March 23 2020, @04:24PM (3 children)
Copyright and freedom of speech must collide at some point.
DMCA notices can be and have been used to suppress content that does not actually infringe any copyright. Even if it gets resolved later, the free speech was suppressed.
Some people believe the DMCA is for anything like trademark, or slander / libel, or "just because I don't like what they said about me!" Waaaaaaah! (sniff) WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 23 2020, @07:22PM (2 children)
Agreed. If we accept that copyright is good, at all, then we must sacrifice some free speech. But, copyright was never meant to last a lifetime, either. Thank Disney, Sonny Bonehead, and platoons of lawyers for today's lifetime+70 years, or whatever it is now.
Copyright really is a good thing, so long as it is not abused. Fifteen years, and then it goes into public domain. Such a scheme really does encourage creativity among authors and artists. Fifteen years. And, for fifteen years, I'll stand by the author's right to protect his interest in his work. That does NOT include satire, fair use, etc.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Monday March 23 2020, @07:47PM (1 child)
Copyright lasts beyond a lifetime. Because creators must be rewarded beyond the grave for an additional 70 years.
An unmentioned collision of copyright and free speech is when the copyright holder thinks that any kind of fair use or simply incidental mention or brief portion is an infringement.
If fair use is not allowed, then there can be no (possibly critical) research or simply opinion pieces that mention or compare or contrast or criticize the work.
Off on a tangent, perpendicular to the point at the circumference of copyright, Tirade Marks. Anyone with a trademark thinks that they get to own all possible ways a word could ever be used. The entire purpose of trademark is to prevent confusion in the market. It's not to prevent me from saying "Microsoft" or "Windows". Or stating an opinion. Or comparing it with another product or service. When I say that Microsoft Windows 10 is a steaming pile of horse excrement with a fresh topping of festering goat vomit, I am not trying to cause confusion in the market by my use of their trademark. I am using the trademark properly in order to ensure that there can be no possible confusion of which company or product I am referring to.
Trademark isn't to prevent me from saying "Coke". It is meant to prevent me from selling my bottle of poison concoction and calling it "Coke".
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday March 24 2020, @12:08AM
It would be hard to beat the poison qualities of Coke, so not even than.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.