El Reg reports
The US Copyright Office is asking the tech industry and members of the public to comment about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and in particular the rules governing copyright infringement.
Section 512 of the DMCA gives ISPs and internet hosts immunity from prosecution if material that infringes copyright, such as music tracks, is taken down promptly if the entity owning the rights to it protests. "Repeat infringers" are penalized.
[...] The DMCA was signed into law in 1998, and since then flaws have been consistently pointed out in the legislation, not least with section 512. So the Copyright Office wants to know how to improve things.
"The Office will consider the costs and burdens of the notice-and-takedown process on large- and small-scale copyright owners, online service providers, and the general public", the request reads.
"The Office will also review how successfully section 512 addresses online infringement and protects against improper takedown notices. To aid in this effort, and to provide thorough assistance to Congress, the Office is seeking public input on a number of key questions."
In the request for responses, the Office posits 28 questions it would like answered, including how the legislation is working in practice, what legal precedents are affecting its operation, and whether takedown notices are effective. It also asks for any academic studies on the matter.
[...] The guidelines for submissions will be posted on February 1 and the open period for comments ends on March 21, so there's plenty of time to get a submission ready. How much good this will do, however, remains to be seen.
Related Stories
The Bernie Sanders Campaign, through attorney Garvey Schubert Barer, has issued a DMCA takedown notice to Wikimedia for hosting Bernie Sanders' Logos. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) applies to copyright violations rather than trademarks. According to Techdirt, even if it did apply to trademarks, Wikimedia's hosting campaign logos is clearly fair use because there's no "use in commerce" on the Wikimedia site and no likelihood of confusion. The matter is clearly "fair-use" if Bernie Sanders is claiming copyright violation.
The logos have been removed from Wikimedia, which seems like a counterproductive move in more ways than one. Is Bernie Sanders really technologically clueless, or is there some political logic here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @02:47AM
A human should have to sign off on every DMCA takedown individually.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:03AM
Good start - but there also needs to be some liability for frivolous bullshit. There are so very many examples of fair use, which are vigorously attacked - a baby dancing to music that is almost inaudible becomes a copyright violation? Geez, Louise - the woman who recorded that cute little video should be entitled to compensation for being unreasonably accused of violating copyright. Fair use is fair use.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:03AM
Absolutely. However, this doesn't go far enough. See, at present DMCA takedowns are not actually DMCA takedowns. They are the result of Google and other large hosting companies giving the MAFIAA and their affiliates a backdoor system where they can flag anything they like as infringing "under the DMCA" but without the actual teeth of the DMCA. They then honor this with shockingly low recourse for the uploader.
I would like a provision outlawing this kind of backdoor system. Something like this: Any third party takedown request to any internet hosting service or provider must be provided as a DMCA takedown notice, under penalty of perjury.
The goal is that it only affects third parties; companies can take down offending or illegal content voluntarily if they prefer, preserving their autonomy. And every takedown which is provided is sent under penalty of perjury, with no way to waive or otherwise negate the right of an uploader to sue the person who submitted a false takedown notice.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:15AM
I would like a provision outlawing this kind of backdoor system.
I don't care about the backdoor request. I don't care if they camp out in Google's server farm.
But an escalating scale of monetary penalties for issuing false takedowns has to be added to the law. And of these penalties, at least half should go to the content publisher (joe blow) and one quarter to he hoster (google) and one quarter to the courts to fund prosecutions of false take down requests.
And by escalating I mean something on the order of an asymptotic curve, such that mass abusers are quickly bankrupted.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:28PM
I don't care about the backdoor request. I don't care if they camp out in Google's server farm.
But an escalating scale of monetary penalties for issuing false takedowns has to be added to the law.
Fine, but such a policy won't have any teeth if Google 'decide' to pull down your content because they deem it to breach their own usage policy (without any mention of the DMCA etc.).
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday January 09 2016, @08:33PM
If Google gets a cut of the penalties levied against false takedowns, Google might suddently be more interested in following the procedures that would let it get paid.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 09 2016, @10:24PM
If your content violates Google's policy then take your content somewhere else.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @10:32PM
Google has the right to make their policy whatever they want (within reason. IE: so long as they don't promote terrorism or some nonsense like that).
The problem isn't that Google's policy is too strict because the law allows it to be too strict. If that were the case then the solution is to create a competing service. Google should be allowed to make their policy as strict as they want. If you don't like it you should be free to either create your own platform or to go to another platform. If they want to be a pro-religious platform or a pro-atheist platform or only a platform for science that's up to them. It's their policy. The problem is that the law encourages a one sided policy due to the unbalanced nature of the law. The following is the problem.
"This may result from the inherent imbalance in prerequisites for the original complaint and the counter-notice. To get content removed, copyright holder Bob need only claim a good-faith belief that neither he nor the law has authorized the use. Bob is not subject to penalties for perjury. In contrast, to get access to content re-enabled, Alice must claim a good faith belief under penalty of perjury that the material was mistakenly taken down."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act [wikipedia.org]
"As we've noted many times in the past, there is almost no real punishment for filing false takedowns. The "penalty of perjury" language appears to only apply to the question of whether or not the person filing the takedown actually represents the party they claim to represent -- and not whether the file is infringing at all, or even whether or not the file's copyright is held by the party being represented. "
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131118/02152325272/warner-bros-admits-to-issuing-bogus-takedowns-gloats-to-court-how-theres-nothing-anyone-can-do-about-that.shtml [techdirt.com]
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151231/16544133215/us-copyright-office-asks-public-comments-dmcas-notice-takedown.shtml?threaded=true [techdirt.com]
and that's what needs to change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @09:46AM
The very existence of DMCA takedowns is a problem. Automatic DMCA notices are a secondary issue. You want something censored? Go to court from the beginning, every single time.
And of course, you should be able to remove any digital restrictions management you please.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @12:13PM
How about expanding the time needed to take down the offending material so the host can properly investigate if the material actually infringes on a copyright?
If they where actually sincere about fixing the copyright laws, they would have fixed the parts that people have been complaining about for ages by now.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dbv on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:17AM
What's wrong with it? Seriously? It's used to disenfranchise end users and shut down competition.
I own a DVD or BR and can't back it up because its encrypted. I can't get 3rd party printer cartridges because the manufacturer chose to encrypt? It's ridiculous. Keurig is now using encryption on coffee machines to avoid competition.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by anubi on Saturday January 09 2016, @06:41AM
A few days ago, we discussed here on SN [soylentnews.org] about Warner Brothers and Intel going after these guys [hdfury.com] for making an adapter so that if someone bought one of these super expensive 4K TV sets, it would see the later protocol.... or in the words of the manufacturer:
I feel if our courts are going to uphold this kind of formatting hogwash, they need to - at the same time - abolish all restrictions on customer returns because some product did not play on his protected device. If a business wants the cash to come across the counter and into his cash register - and STAY there, the thing he sold better work. Crap like format incompatibilities like this should be grounds for a product return - where the cash goes back to the buyer, the noncompliant display device and the noncompliant media go back to the merchant.
Let the merchants, Warner Brothers, and Intel have nice business talk on how all this obfuscation is helping their cash flow business.
We would not think twice about returning a light bulb to Home Depot if some manufacturer got a itch up his arse to slightly modify the basing of a light bulb so it would not fit a standard socket, would we?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Saturday January 09 2016, @09:34AM
Honestly, I kind of consider it a step in the right direction that they're even asking the question. Not enough of a step in the right direction and way too many years late, but any movement in the right direction is better than none.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by liquibyte on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:19AM
The fact that it exists as law whatsoever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:24AM
Your statement presupposes that copyright is intrinsically wrong. And, that enforcing copyright is also wrong. My position is that copyright is a valid concept, but that it has been bastardized beyond any reasonable definition.
Given that we could roll copyright back to about 15 or 20 year terms, then I could justify the idea of copyright enforcement, and the DMCA. The first post in this discussion addresses one of the real problems with DMCA - pointless, frivolous enforcement notices that are way off target.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:31AM
Its either one way or another here, can't have any of this middle-of-the-road nonsense!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:39AM
No, it is not one way or the other.
Let us consider another topic for a moment. Police brutality is a real thing, and police racism is a real thing. Would you prefer that all police forces in the US be disbanded, or would you prefer that the police are permitted to continue brutalizing people based on racist stereotypes? Don't come back with some middle-of-the-road nonsense about "fixing" the police.
Back on topic - I can justify copyright protections, if they are reasonable. What we have today is totally UNreasonable. I would prefer to fix the broken system. Specifically, the DMCA can be fixed pretty easily. Less specifically, the copyright system requires a major overhaul.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @05:50AM
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @07:09AM
Guess I forgot the /s, thought middle-of-the-road nonsense was joking enough, you must be in a serious mood.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @12:21PM
you must be in a serious mood.
He always is.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 09 2016, @02:57PM
I was born with an extra serious bone instead of a funny bone.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:26PM
Indeed. The problem is the Bono Act, not the DMCA. That said, issuing an unwarranted takedown notice should carry some heavy penalties, whether in error or malice.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday January 09 2016, @09:55AM
Your statement presupposes that copyright is intrinsically wrong.
Well, that's because it is. Enforcing copyright necessarily requires censorship, and censorship is intolerable. Copyright infringement cannot actually cause tangible harm, so what we have is a victimless crime. You cannot "lose" a sale because you never owned the sale to begin with, and you also cannot own potential future profits. Any initial investment to organize the data in the first place was taken on by the authors; people who engaged in unauthorized copying after the product was released did not force the authors to make such an investment, so you cannot blame them for the initial investment.
You're creating a victimless crime that promotes censorship and loss of private property rights, and then saying that the ends justify the means because you believe you'll get more shiny goodies out of it.
then I could justify the idea of copyright enforcement, and the DMCA.
Nothing would justify the DMCA. How can forbidding people from removing digital restrictions management be justified? How can censorship be justified? Even worse: How can 'censor first, ask questions later' policies be justified? It my eyes, they can't.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:31PM
"Enforcing copyright necessarily requires censorship,"
I can't agree. Back when I was growing up, you bought music on vinyl, or you just listened to it on the radio. Only wealthy people could afford reel-to-reels. If you wanted vinyl, you paid the price. It cost ten or twenty cents for the studios to make and ship the vinyl, and they charged you a dollar for it. Or, if you wanted the whole album, it cost the studios forty or fifty cents to press the vinyl, and they charged you $5 to $10 for the album. There was no censorship involved - you wanted a physical item which could produce the squacking noises you liked, you paid the price.
Along came cheap tape, and everyone was recording whatever they wanted, and carrying it with them, wherever they wanted. Up on a mountain, in a tunnel, hell, you could take it to the dark side of the moon if you wanted (and if you had the ride to get there). No one bothered you, unless you were SELLING these recordings.
Today, the *IAA's of the world are working toward actual censorship. Swap a few bits of data with friends or peers, and they want millions of dollars, or imprison you. Yeah, that amounts to censorship.
But, getting back to basics, copyright law was never meant to stop people from sharing information, or to stop people copying music, or whatever. The original idea was, "if there's any money to be made from a song or story, then the author should get some of that money". I can't argue that. If you write a story tomorrow, and within a year, half the population of the world pays $10.00 to own their own copy of it, then you SHOULD get some of that money. If, however, no one wants to pay for the story, you are still entitled to some of that profit - which is $0 of course.
That is where copyright has gone most seriously wrong. There is a presumption that the author can set the price of the story, and that he should get rich off of it. People just don't think that those works of art are that valuable.
They would do better to put their works out there on the internet, and ask for donation. If I really enjoy a movie, book, or song, I can hit the Paypal link, and donate fifty bucks. If I like it, but not a whole lot, I can donate ten bucks. If it actually sucks, but it amused me a little, I can donate fifty cents. And, if it REALLY sucks, I can submit a bill for the time wasted watching the crappy movie.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Touché) by mcgrew on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:23PM
Back when I was growing up, you bought music on vinyl, or you just listened to it on the radio. Only wealthy people could afford reel-to-reels
How old are you, Grandpa? I had a tape recorder when I was 12 and we were far from wealthy. I'm 63 now. Traded cassettes the whole time I was in high school. File sharing dates back to the 1960s, and a decade later recording was explicitly legalized.
It cost ten or twenty cents for the studios to make and ship the vinyl
Citation sorely needed, especially the shipping part. You also left out warehousing costs and retail overhead and profit.
hell, you could take it to the dark side of the moon if you wanted
People did take music to the far side of the moon. Aside from those few nits, your comment was insightful.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday January 09 2016, @05:06PM
I can't agree.
Copyright creates a system where people can be punished for making/distributing copies of data in certain circumstances. How is this not censorship? Even disregarding the censorship angle, it still reduces your private property rights.
The original idea was, "if there's any money to be made from a song or story, then the author should get some of that money".
Why? It's my money and I choose where to spend it. If I want to give my money to some guy making copies of a song someone else made instead of the original author, that's my business. You don't own my money before I give it to you, you don't own potential sales, and you don't own potential future profits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @06:13PM
> If I want to give my money to some guy making copies of a song someone else made instead of the original author, that's my business.
I cam imagine that a creator that caught you doing this, might decide that it was THEIR business to give you a punch in the nose...
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday January 10 2016, @02:46AM
the original concept of copyright was that, in exchange for temporary exclusive distribution rights, that once your period of exclusive distribution ended the work became public domain. it was both a way to enrich the public domain and allow people a way to survive while working on their next project. its one of those "the benefits outweigh the cost" cases. this has, however, become extremely distorted such that nothing remains of the original concept. most people don't have a problem with the original concept of copyright, just idealogues like you who refuse to compromise or budge on anything short of what they consider "perfect".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:51PM
the original concept of copyright was that, in exchange for temporary exclusive distribution rights, that once your period of exclusive distribution ended the work became public domain.
Infringing upon free speech and private property rights to stop something that doesn't even cause any real harm in order to obtain more shiny goodies is not justifiable to me at all. The original concept of copyright was flawed as well. Whether or not it is effecting at encouraging innovation is a secondary matter, but no one has even demonstrated scientific evidence that it does such a thing.
I cannot, in good conscious, support punishing people for behaviors that are not truly harmful, even if doing so allows for more innovation.
its one of those "the benefits outweigh the cost" cases.
Only if you don't mind punishing people for engaging in an activity that isn't even harmful and place a very low value on freedom.
most people don't have a problem with the original concept of copyright,
What most people do or do not have a problem with is irrelevant. Why did you feel the need to mention this?
just idealogues like you who refuse to compromise or budge on anything short of what they consider "perfect".
Yes, yes. Typical nonsense where you take the easy way out and label anyone you don't like as an "extremist" or an "ideologue"; it has the convenient benefit of allowing one to shut off their brain and not think about the validity of the arguments presented, but whether or not that was your intention, I don't know.
Anyway, what you're saying is just false. Perfect is the enemy of good. I am all for compromises that will improve the situation from my point of view, which means I would accept (or temporarily tolerate) weaker copyright laws. Of course, it would not stop there and I would continue advocating for the complete abolition of copyright. But in the mean time, I'm all in favor of lessening the severity of these rights violations. I would recommend that you simply ask me what my positions are, instead of pretending that you know what they are or getting this information from some unknown source.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:16PM
who said anything about shiny goodies? i'm talking about fucking food and shelter, you know things required to survive:
allow people a way to survive while working on their next project
nope, not anyone, just you, because i know from experience that you will never budge on your positions or compromise in any way, no matter how irrational, extreme, and incorrect they are. well, not just you because there are plenty of others around here who refuse to compromise or budge from their positions no matter what, but you, specifically, i know it is true of you because i've read enough of your posts and you make it extremely obvious in just about every discussion you take part in. there's a word for that kind of thing too, "idealogue" [merriam-webster.com].
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday January 11 2016, @01:04AM
who said anything about shiny goodies? i'm talking about fucking food and shelter, you know things required to survive:
There is no fundamental right to make money doing a particular job, and the ones who engage in copying neither help nor hurt that goal. Some business models fail and others succeed, but you don't get to infringe on other people's freedom of speech just to 'guarantee' yourself a minimum amount of income. Since they are not causing harm, it is unjustifiable to me to punish them. The ends don't justify the means.
And since you were talking about the original intentions of copyright, you should know that copyright in the US was not intended to exist so that artists can make money doing their jobs, but to promote innovation. The copyright clause makes this clear. Giving people monopolies on the distribution of particular implementations of ideas was just a means to that end. Quite a difference, there.
So I am baffled by your response, because it appears to indicate that you think that we can infringe upon people's fundamental rights and outlaw actions that are not even harmful so that some people can make enough money doing particular jobs. I don't find that to be justifiable. It seems to me that what you might want is a basic income.
because i know from experience that you will never budge on your positions or compromise in any way,
I've already told you that this is false, and that I would be willing to accept a compromise if it meant having weaker copyright law even if that isn't my ultimate goal. Are you trying to tell me what I believe? If so, that is rather foolish, I think. Why not just argue with an imaginary opponent if you're going to do that?
Or what do you mean by "compromise"? To give up my position because I don't share your values?
no matter how irrational, extreme, and incorrect they are
I'm not seeing how my position here is irrational or incorrect. You may not share my values, but you have not shown my position is logically flawed.
How "extreme" you think a particular position is has nothing to do with its validity, so I'm not sure why you bothered mentioning that. Why would I "budge on" (What does this mean, exactly? You listed it as a separate thing from "compromise", so I assume they are different.) a position merely because it's considered "extreme"?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:14PM
If you get rid of copyright, nobody could make a living writing. You would have a LOT less good art, music, or literature.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:56PM
I don't know whether or not that is true. Neither do you, even though you stated that as a fact.
More importantly, the ends don't justify the means. I value freedom of speech, private property rights, and not having victimless crimes over having more shiny stuff.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday January 13 2016, @04:34PM
There's a lot wrong with current copyright law, true. And some people would in fact write and paint and play music because they enjoy doing so, but Stephen King would write a lot fewer books and your favorite musicians would release a lot less music. It's a fact that you can't live without money in this society, and unless you're rich or retired you have to work. No copyright means writing is no longer a job.
But copyright is way too long, and I think noncommercial file sharing should be legal.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 13 2016, @05:50PM
I don't know what a society with our level of technology without copyright would look like. As far as I know, none exist. I can't draw a conclusion as to whether or not what you're saying is true.
But I ultimately care more about the freedom of speech and private property angle than the discussion about innovation.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday January 10 2016, @01:23AM
If you get rid of copyright, nobody could make a living writing. You would have a LOT less good art, music, or literature.
Da Vinci, Michelanglo, Handel, Bach, Shakespeare, Chaucer... wouldn't have created anything?
I'm not saying we shouldn't have copyright; I am saying that the current length of protection is far too long (by over a century in some jurisdictions) and the restrictions on personal use are truly insane. I am also saying that copyright isn't the only way of compensating writers, composers, sculptors, painters, coders, teachers...
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday January 13 2016, @04:29PM
If you got rid of copyright the rich would have culture and no one else. But I agree that copyright lengths are WAY too long. I'd like to see the Bono Act repealed.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:45PM
Your statement presupposes that copyright is intrinsically wrong.
No, it supposes that the DMCA is wrong.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 09 2016, @05:38PM
No. His answer presupposes that the DMCA is intrinsically wrong. There was copyright already before the DMCA.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Saturday January 09 2016, @08:44PM
And the Sony Bono copyright extension was also wrong. In fact I question that any copyright act since the 1920s was either fair or just. (And before the 1920's there were lots of problems with protectionisn, etc. so those weren't just either.)
I like the principle of Copyright, I just think it should have a 5 year limit with an optional renewal to 10 years, and a subsequent renewal with coerced licensing to 15 years. And nothing after that. And it should definitely not last as long as the life of the media on which the work was produced. If you buy a copy, it sould be something that you can have guaraneed access to forever (or as long as you make backups)...which means that if they copy protect their work they should be required to provide rapid and easy replacement if the original becomes damaged.
The entire purpose of copyright is that works should eventually end up in the public domain. Any law which does not ensure this does not achieve the purpose of copyright (as implied by the constitution) and should therefor be invalid.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by liquibyte on Saturday January 09 2016, @06:02PM
My statement does no such thing. The law is a farce, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it save the lobbyists that wrote it. You made an assumption that I was against copyright. I'm not, I'm against this law. Copyright existed long before DMCA and will likely exist, hopefully in its original form, after it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @09:01AM
The fact that it exists as law whatsoever.
Nerds: "FUCK YOU, COPYRIGHT! GIMME FREE SHIT FOR FREE. NOW!!!!!"
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:13AM
Check this out:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Beach+Boys+MP3 [google.com]
Google has hordes of tech geniuses working on cutting edge problems involving AI and big data, but they can't figure out how to prune the same mp3 piracy sites that have been around for years?
Google is not serious about addressing the problem. They're telling the record industry, we insist that you write us a letter for each instance of a violation. And then they pretend to wonder why they get so many DMCA takedown notices that they have to wade through.
Hey Google, you have expertise in creating search filters, right? This stuff should be trivial for your elite engineering staff.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:32AM
So its googles job to police the internet? Since when?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:36AM
With great power comes great responsibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @11:59AM
It's not the responsibility of Google to police the Internet, no matter what you say.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:55AM
They're telling the record industry, we insist that you write us a letter for each instance of a violation.
A crappy old scan of my book appeared in someone's Google Docs/Drive the other day. Since my publisher hasn't created an eBook version yet, this is a cut&dried (C) violation.
I followed the link to the Google complaint page and filled out their DMCA form. There was a box where I could enter many URLs, although in this case there was only one that I found. They also asked me for a URL that showed where the same book is available legitimately and I provided a link to my publisher's online store. They asked me to "sign" with a note that making false statements is potentially criminal. Then they sent me a link to a page where I could monitor their response. After a couple of days the dashboard showed "removed" and when I checked the original link was dead.
For a little guy, this worked very nicely. What I don't know (yet) is if they bother to check future uploads and block that same crappy scan the next time someone attempts to put it on Google Drive...
(related) For several years, ScribeD hosted many copies of that same scan. Every time they took it down (similar deal, but had to email them a form letter in specific format) they always sent a response that bragged about their content checking system. After some frustration, I finally got the answer, their "advanced fingerprinting" system to prevent repeat uploads only worked on text files! Since the crappy scan of my book is a binary image, I suggested they expand their pattern matching capability. Eventually it seems like they did, because they no longer host this infringing scan.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tibman on Saturday January 09 2016, @07:07AM
It really sounds like people want a digital copy of your book and because you and/or your publisher haven't provided one they have resorted to piracy.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Saturday January 09 2016, @06:11PM
Yes, even if only 10% of the filthy pirates circulating a copy of your book right now even bother to pay, by not providing the option to, you've cut out sales to those 10%, and eliminated the chance to convert any of the others. Those people are not lost profits. Those people are pirates. The ones that are pirating because there is no other alternative, well I suppose you could ask them nicely to not pirate, but you'd be best off offering to sell them what they want.
You also cut yourself off from people that demonstrate demand, could provide feedback or otherwise benefit you in ways that do not directly translate into a royalty check.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday January 09 2016, @07:53AM
A crappy old scan of my book appeared in someone's Google Docs/Drive the other day.
Wow, you are really dense. Who are you, and what it the title of your crappy book? If you had provided this information, thousands of Soylentils would be reading your work as we speak! But no, you prefer to depend on an access restrictor, a "publisher", who now is the exact opposite of what their name implies. So I will never read your book. Nor will any Soylentil, or any citizen of the internets. You have dug yourself into a hole of obscurity and incompetence, so no one, and I mean no one, will have sympathy for you or your pathetic and anonymous (and unavailable) literary works. Sorry, bro!
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday January 09 2016, @09:15AM
A further observation to support your point...
Many of us here know who Cory Doctorow [craphound.com] is.
He even has people like me and others shamelessly promoting him. Without pay or even being asked to. We do it from the concept of sharing. Just as we apply our time and energies to keep sites like SN active. Its in our psyche. Sharing. Giving of ourselves as a form of paying what others gave us forward.
Damn near all of us here will do it.
I have been reading these forums for too long to know generally what kind of people hang out here. Really good people. And I wish we had more of this kind around.
Does anyone here know who this other author is?
If not, his DRM worked! Its as if he never existed!
Now, if everyone felt that way, where would all of us be?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @02:59PM
...thousands of Soylentils would be reading your work as we speak!
I strongly doubt it, this isn't the entertainment market. For anyone still reading:
o It is an engineering reference book, ~1000 pages and full of detailed explanations, algebra & trig. It's printed on quality paper and has a long lasting sewn binding (NOT textbook binding that is designed to fall apart after a year or so).
o A few dozen universities use it for a textbook and the publisher sells it to students for under $100, considerably less than a typical college textbook.
o I depend on my publisher because the publishing contract was signed in 1993 (book is (C) 1995). In exchange for royalties, they have exclusive rights to the book as long as they keep it in print.
o The publisher has done a good job of honoring their side of the contract including advertizing the book very effectively to the target/niche audience (which is not IT). In the face of rising prices, they have maintained high quality printing/binding over a dozen reprints (a few thousand copies each printing).
Would I sign a similar contract with a publisher if I was writing this book now? Of course not, the publishing world has changed. Some other arrangement would be needed, perhaps a corporate sponsor. Would I stick with paper, probably yes, the ability to stick in post-its, write in the margin, and turn actual pages feels right to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @06:53PM
Lindeburg! Is that you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @07:40PM
> ...but you'd be best off offering to sell them what they want.
You forgot the bit about signing a publishing contract (back in 1993). If there is going to be an ebook version, that's up to the publisher -- I have no direct control over that. This particular publisher hasn't done very well with ebooks for their other titles, I think it's less than 10% of sales.
I did say that if there is ever "volume 2" (not all that likely), my preference would be to have it on paper, at least initially.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:34PM
I doubt the AC you replied to ever wrote a book. Most likely he's a MAFIAA shill, or he would have told us his name and the title of his book. In a situation like that where he's not self-published, the publisher's legal staff would have taken care of the situation, since they paid for publication rights (meaning Mr. greedy AC was already paid).
You can read and download mine for free, I'll only come after you if you try to make money off of my work.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @06:03PM
> the publisher's legal staff would have taken care of the situation, since they paid for publication rights (meaning Mr. greedy AC was already paid).
The publisher is currently shorthanded, so I handled the takedown with Google Drive myself, and my contact at the publisher was appreciative. They take care of most of them, but the woman that used to play whack-a-mole with websites hosting the crappy scan is away (maternity leave, I believe).
Feel free to call me greedy, but after 20 years, the time that went into producing the book has paid back at a modest hourly rate (adding up all the royalties). Less than I make now for contract engineering. I did not get an advance from the publisher, instead contracted for a two-tier royalty, I gambled that sales would be good and a higher % kicked in after sales were enough to approximately cover production costs. It is possible to deal with publishers, I re-wrote quite a bit of the contract they first offered.
And I know that I was lucky, many/most reference and specialist text books make very little money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @06:38AM
So, what does ?gws_rd=[...] mean? [jugotech.com]
[...]
It means Google web server (gws) getting redirected (rd)
[...]
How do you get rid of ?gws_rd=?
[...]
It’s easy to stop this Google redirection from happening
[...]
When you are on Settings page [...] add ncr after the forward slash at the back of URL
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:16PM
It's easy to stop this Google redirection from happening. Stop using Google.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @07:17AM
Shenanigans! It is technically possible, but would be a HUGE burden. They would need a catalog of every copyrighted material ever, then they would have to have their web crawler and every service make checks against the catalog. It would be a ridiculous amount of overhead. Simply removing every page with the phrase "copyrighted material name mp3 download" would end up removing legitimate online stores, possible fair use cases, etc. Auto removal is the worst idea ever due to the whole false positives thing. Check yourself before you censor yourself!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:17PM
> ...It is technically possible, but would be a HUGE burden.
Not that bad if you are willing to accept a partial solution. For just one example, check the first block/page of the file as it's being uploaded and see if that matches anything in the database of previously flagged/infringing files. I believe this is what ScribeD claims to do. Or look at the file length and checksum (or other easily computed "fingerprint"). If you get a match, flag for possible (C) violation, most of the kids uploading a copy aren't going to bother making small changes to the file. A slight improvement would be to compare using a few different offsets, in case the header changed length.
Google must do a lot more than this when they crawl the web and index it? Google is nice enough to send me an auto Alert which I have set for the book title and other related search strings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:36PM
Not necessary. If the web site is clearing advertising unsanctioned MP3 downloads to copyrighted materials, then add priority weight -200 to the search results, so it doesn't show in the first 20 pages of hit results. Easy.