Should Websites Charge A Fee To Process Copyright Takedowns?

[gideongallery]

http://torrentfreak.com/should-websi...edowns-120528/

h33t.com is a Canadian company hosted on Canadian backbone has decided to charge Americans who refuse to file the proper Canadian paper work and instead expect them to honor american DMCA requests.

Should more foreign companies push back on the obvious over extension of US laws.

[429mg]

Nope, that's insane. The content should not be there in the first place and it's the site owner's responsibility.

[XPays]

all internet roads lead through Virginia, like it or not

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by XPays

all internet roads lead through Virginia, like it or not

the courts have not ruled that way yet

That argument is at best an interpretation of the law

and if fact a couple of trademark cases have ruled the exact opposite.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by 429mg

Nope, that's insane. The content should not be there in the first place and it's the site owner's responsibility.

it not even the site owners responsibility under US law that what the safe harbor is all about.

And considering that mininova lost their own countries safe harbor by choosing to comply with DMCA notices

That an insanely stupid position to take.

You can still get the content taken down by filling out the appropriate CANADIAN paper work.

Why should foreign countries be expected to follow US laws

Do you follow IRAQ anti porn laws.

[spunky99]

ya.. they wont last long, doubt their legal budget is gonna be that big

[VenusBlogger]

Good idea.

It would cut all the FAKE DMCA senders, competitors with bad faith, and shitty losers with a LLC charging 500 bucks per month to their clients to send mass dmca's with an ILLEGAL script, which in 99% is not precise and create troubles in vain, sending false possitives, no matter what some bull-dog/pit-bull junkie or Mr. Verde say.

Period.

[shake]

No, but I think there should be a BIG fine for filing fake requests... I've received a lot of those and never used copyright content without a licence.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by shake

No, but I think there should be a BIG fine for filing fake requests... I've received a lot of those and never used copyright content without a licence.

I agree. If you're hosting unlawful material, you should cease doing so and not demand that that legitimate owner pay you to stop unlawfully distributing their property. The site claims the rights holder is asking them to something, something which takes tjeir time. That is wrong. In fact, the holder is asking them to STOP doing something, specifically to stop being unimproved in unlawful conduct.

At the same time, people making false and particularly reckless or intentionally false claims should be held responsible. So I'd say steep penalties for reckless false claims. Much smaller for reasonable but mistaken claims.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by raymor

I agree. If you're hosting unlawful material, you should cease doing so and not demand that that legitimate owner pay you to stop unlawfully distributing their property. The site claims the rights holder is asking them to something, something which takes tjeir time. That is wrong. In fact, the holder is asking them to STOP doing something, specifically to stop being unimproved in unlawful conduct.

again you can still file the appropriate CANADIAN Takedown process

selling porn violates the laws of iraq, so should you stop selling porn everywhere because of that.

At the same time, people making false and particularly reckless or intentionally false claims should be held responsible. So I'd say steep penalties for reckless false claims. Much smaller for reasonable but mistaken claims.

well it should be equal

say 150k per person who was denied access.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

selling porn violates the laws of iraq, so should you stop selling porn everywhere because of that.

Stolen property violates the law of Canada, the other 164 nations who are signatories to the Berne convention, and most of the twenty or so (mostly tiny) countries that haven't signed Berne yet. So yeah, a Canadian country should stop participating in something that's unlawful under Canadian and international law.

Every country recognizes that programmers, artists and authors, just like carpenters and bakers, own what they make. Pretty much only you, you alone, think it's okay for you to take my hard earned work product for your selfish, lazy, little freeloading self.

[L-Pink]

Sure, websites should also charge copyright holders for any costs involved in stealing their property and hosting it.

[VenusBlogger]

Originally Posted by shake

No, but I think there should be a BIG fine for filing fake requests... I've received a lot of those and never used copyright content without a licence.

Exactly.

The problem is always the same. When they try to fight something that "could or could not be illegal", they use illegal methods or resources to fight it, and they OVER-REACT.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by raymor

Stolen property violates the law of Canada, the other 164 nations who are signatories to the Berne convention, and most of the twenty or so (mostly tiny) countries that haven't signed Berne yet. So yeah, a Canadian country should stop participating in something that's unlawful under Canadian and international law.

Every country recognizes that programmers, artists and authors, just like carpenters and bakers, own what they make. Pretty much only you, you alone, think it's okay for you to take my hard earned work product for your selfish, lazy, little freeloading self.

berne convention does not require foreign countries to obey US laws it requires that they recognize the registration of copyright.

The laws you have to obey are still that foreign countries.

canada has far greater fair dealing/fair use rights in part because of our piracy tax

Canada "contributory infringement" statutes are substantially weaker then the american counter part.

We have a complete different takedown process then your DMCA takedown process.

And i have repeatedly said you can always use that process for free.

[His Infernal Majesty]

What's to stop these sites from just uploading the content themselves to extort money from the copyright holders? And per instance? It's crazy!

[L-Pink]

Warning! Freetard Alert!

[BIGTYMER]

Should a company charge you to reply to your email? No.

[d-null]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

berne convention does not require foreign countries to obey US laws it requires that they recognize the registration of copyright.

The laws you have to obey are still that foreign countries.

canada has far greater fair dealing/fair use rights in part because of our piracy tax

Canada "contributory infringement" statutes are substantially weaker then the american counter part.

We have a complete different takedown process then your DMCA takedown process.

And i have repeatedly said you can always use that process for free.

can you explain the Canadian equivalent of the process?

[epitome]

This argument is getting ridiculous. The US should stop doing business with any country that will not honor our property rights... and content is property. Cut off the aid seemingly every country has their hand out for, ban their citizens from visiting and make it illegal to do business with that country.

See how quickly freetards change their tune then.

Hell, let's just nuke them.

[ShoeBox]

This post will cost you $20

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by VenusBlogger

Good idea.

It would cut all the FAKE DMCA senders, competitors with bad faith, and shitty losers with a LLC charging 500 bucks per month to their clients to send mass dmca's with an ILLEGAL script, which in 99% is not precise and create troubles in vain, sending false possitives, no matter what some bull-dog/pit-bull junkie or Mr. Verde say.

Period.

Uhhmmm....if you get a DMCA notice, take down the content. If you didn't create it, it's not yours. No big deal. It shouldn't be there in the first place. So just take it down.

Period.

[venus]

whats wrong with just removing anything you are not licensed to use?

If you have stolen stuff on your site remove it and stop playing dumb games. If not, whats to stop someone from copying your entire site and reposting it under a very similar name.

Originally Posted by gideongallery

And i have repeatedly said you can always use that process for free.

[Paul Markham]

Should a bank robber charge a fee for returning the money he stole?

Another stupid thread by the stupidest of us all.

Explain to us again how the "Tax Credit" system will work. That was a really great idea. LOL

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by venus

whats wrong with just removing anything you are not licensed to use?

If you have stolen stuff on your site remove it and stop playing dumb games. If not, whats to stop someone from copying your entire site and reposting it under a very similar name.

You're falling for Gideon Gutterfuck's ploy, Venus. His argument is that he can use anything he wants under the guise that it's "fair use" because he swaps out the moaning and groaning of a typical porn soundtrack with some Kenny G smooth jazz. He thinks that makes it a "parody". He doesn't know what a parody is. Dumb games are what he thinks will pass as a legitimate legal defense when it comes time to go to trial.

Hey Gideon Gutterfuck... why don't you enroll yourself in law school so you can get a real education instead of this jailhouse law you practice on the forums? The professors of any law school would mop the floor with you. I would pay to see that train wreck.

I'd hate to see you go to prison, unable to defend yourself... and unable to afford a legitimate defense counsel.

[Radical Bucks]

Baseball bats are needed we need to get old school.

So you steal my content, then charge me to have it removed from your website?

NOT! I will take your knees out with a baseball bat!

[NewNick]

Well let's turn this around - if there was an automatic fine process every time the legitimate owner proved his content was being illegally distributed, then the site owners would very quickly ensure that they had all their content correctly licensed.

All this "we cannot possibly be expected to know what's on our website" bullshit would end immediately.

A newspaper proprietor is responsible for what he prints but a website owner is not responsible ?

(Obviously this assumes that site regulations and fines would be policed and upheld - fat chance !)

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by epitome

This argument is getting ridiculous. The US should stop doing business with any country that will not honor our property rights... and content is property. Cut off the aid seemingly every country has their hand out for, ban their citizens from visiting and make it illegal to do business with that country.

See how quickly freetards change their tune then.

Hell, let's just nuke them.

you do realize canada is the biggest trading partner for resources like oil right.

If the US blocked all business with this country your economy would grind to a halt.

Your domestic supply is not good enough to meet your current demands.

The funny part is your arguing destroying hundreds of industries that can survive without government protection

Because your industry is too weak survive without a government granted monopoly.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by venus

whats wrong with just removing anything you are not licensed to use?

If you have stolen stuff on your site remove it and stop playing dumb games. If not, whats to stop someone from copying your entire site and reposting it under a very similar name.

two word fair use

Fair use allows me to use "your" content without a licence.

You trade away that exemption to get the government granted monopoly control that you need to survive.

[Confined]

what about dmca requests to take down sponsor provided affiliate content? what a fucking joke

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by epitome

This argument is getting ridiculous. The US should stop doing business with any country that will not honor our property rights... and content is property. Cut off the aid seemingly every country has their hand out for, ban their citizens from visiting and make it illegal to do business with that country.

See how quickly freetards change their tune then.

Hell, let's just nuke them.

.

[Smut]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

two word fair use

Fair use allows me to use "your" content without a licence.

You trade away that exemption to get the government granted monopoly control that you need to survive.

If it's for commercial gain, it's not "Fair Use" any longer. It's infringement. Plus, "Fair Use" only applies if it's a "Portion" of the work. Anyone can bend the meaning of the law to their own will, but until you are a judge on a case, I don't believe you are qualified to publicly state what is or isn't the Law in any regard.

[CamTata]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

two word fair use

Fair use allows me to use "your" content without a licence.

You trade away that exemption to get the government granted monopoly control that you need to survive.

I promise you if you steal our content and ignore efforts to remove said stolen content we will come from Romania and knock on your front door.

Fair Use My Ass, plm

[signupdamnit]

Actually I believe copyright holders should be compensated for having to file a DMCA in the first place.

$5 per DMCA no matter what+ $1 for every day the content stays up past 24 hours beyond when valid notice is initially made. After 30 days make it $10 a day. After 90 days make it $100 a day. After 180 days make it $1000 a day. After 365 days make it $10,000 a day. If the business is located overseas allow the copyright holder to seize any ad or other revenue due to the infringing company. So if the infringer is in Russia and refuses to honor the DMCA, le tthe copyright holder seize any ad revenue from US companies which would otherwise be payable to the Russian infringer. If your business is built on mass infringement and burying your head in the sand then this will make you pay for that.

On the other hand if you file a fake DMCA there should be a automatic $1,000 fine for each one.

I'm talking US laws here only of course.

[papill0n]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you do realize canada is the biggest trading partner for resources like oil right.

If the US blocked all business with this country your economy would grind to a halt.

Your domestic supply is not good enough to meet your current demands.

The funny part is your arguing destroying hundreds of industries that can survive without government protection

Because your industry is too weak survive without a government granted monopoly.

and thats your justification for stealing is it fuckstain ? dont bother answering idiot.

try to remember you work a job and are a piece of shit who spends his down time trying to convince people that stealing is ok

one day you will fuck up and steal something from someone like me

[signupdamnit]

Originally Posted by CamTata

I promise you if you steal our content and ignore efforts to remove said stolen content we will come from Romania and knock on your front door.

Fair Use My Ass, plm

I wonder how long it will be until someone makes "fair use" of someone's head in retaliation.

[CamTata]

I know some Bulgarian guys that just might be interested in "fair use" of antique prints. How would you feel about that?

[epitome]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you do realize canada is the biggest trading partner for resources like oil right.

If the US blocked all business with this country your economy would grind to a halt.

Your domestic supply is not good enough to meet your current demands.

The funny part is your arguing destroying hundreds of industries that can survive without government protection

Because your industry is too weak survive without a government granted monopoly.

Fuck oil. We will just drill a horizontal well into Canada and then go down to extract the oil. That probably wouldn't be stealing in your book.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by epitome

Fuck oil. We will just drill a horizontal well into Canada and then go down to extract the oil. That probably wouldn't be stealing in your book.

You just described fair use oil drilling.

.

[epitome]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

You just described fair use oil drilling.

.

Why should we even pay for oil? It's not like countries make the oil. We should be making checks out to the dinosaurs, but no, oil is a government protected monopoly that would never survive without the government's help because oil folks aren't smart enough to find other ways to make money.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Smut

If it's for commercial gain, it's not "Fair Use" any longer. It's infringement.

weird al proves that bullshit statement false

commercial gain does not automatically invalidate fair use the supreme court explictly said so.

Plus, "Fair Use" only applies if it's a "Portion" of the work.

both timeshifting and format shifting prove this statement to be a bald face lie

Again the supreme court says so

Anyone can bend the meaning of the law to their own will, but until you are a judge on a case, I don't believe you are qualified to publicly state what is or isn't the Law in any regard.

not me supreme court

and if you want to add canada supreme court

piracy tax turns piracy into a licensed transaction for any content which is entitled to claim a portion of the tax (valid contract = offer/acceptance/consideration)

and
violating geographic bans is legal because at the time of the infringement the content has a market value of zero (can not be bought).

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by papill0n

and thats your justification for stealing is it fuckstain ? dont bother answering idiot.

try to remember you work a job and are a piece of shit who spends his down time trying to convince people that stealing is ok

one day you will fuck up and steal something from someone like me

no that to point out how entitled clueless copyright holder is to the real world economy

That they would stupidly argue gutting all those real world (free market gained) jobs to protect the government granted (thru monopoly control assignment) income.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by signupdamnit

Actually I believe copyright holders should be compensated for having to file a DMCA in the first place.

$5 per DMCA no matter what+ $1 for every day the content stays up past 24 hours beyond when valid notice is initially made. After 30 days make it $10 a day. After 90 days make it $100 a day. After 180 days make it $1000 a day. After 365 days make it $10,000 a day. If the business is located overseas allow the copyright holder to seize any ad or other revenue due to the infringing company. So if the infringer is in Russia and refuses to honor the DMCA, le tthe copyright holder seize any ad revenue from US companies which would otherwise be payable to the Russian infringer. If your business is built on mass infringement and burying your head in the sand then this will make you pay for that.

On the other hand if you file a fake DMCA there should be a automatic $1,000 fine for each one.

I'm talking US laws here only of course.

or just enforce the current penalties

send the person to jail for the act of fraud.

[CamTata]

doesnt change the fact you steal our shit and ignore removal requests we will knock on your front door. now i have some 16th century etchings, interested?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by epitome

Fuck oil. We will just drill a horizontal well into Canada and then go down to extract the oil. That probably wouldn't be stealing in your book.

stealing = you don't have it anymore

copying = you still have it now



btw the supreme court says that copyright infringement is not stolen


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling...d_States_(1985)

pps.

so you arguing to protect an industry that can't survive without government protection
you should commit a war crime.

[AllAboutCams]

yes they should push them back

[CamTata]

It is quite simple, if i sell you a DVD you own the physical embodiment of the DVD ? and are free to use/dispose of it any way you wish ? you do not own the intellectual property embodied within my DVD, and may not exercise dominion over that property. I own the intangible property encoded in the DVD I sold you, and I am within my rights, according to section 106 of the United Sates Copyright Code, to reproduce and distribute the work as I please due to the time, creativity and money that went into producing my work. You as the owner of a purchased DVD merely own the physical object containing my created work and have no such rights. The Constitution is controlling fact, not just the copyright laws Congress has passed under Constitutional authority.

Society believes and justly rewards an individual for the fruits of their labor.

No how about those etchings?

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CamTata

It is quite simple, if i sell you a DVD you own the physical embodiment of the DVD ? and are free to use/dispose of it any way you wish ? you do not own the intellectual property embodied within my DVD, and may not exercise dominion over that property. I own the intangible property encoded in the DVD I sold you, and I am within my rights, according to section 106 of the United Sates Copyright Code, to reproduce and distribute the work as I please due to the time, creativity and money that went into producing my work. You as the owner of a purchased DVD merely own the physical object containing my created work and have no such rights. The Constitution is controlling fact, not just the copyright laws Congress has passed under Constitutional authority.

Society believes and justly rewards an individual for the fruits of their labor.

No how about those etchings?

exactly

but section 106 states

Subject to sections 107 through 120 [17 USCS Sects. 107-120], the owner of copyright under this title [17 USCS Sects. 101 et seq.] has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

a subject to clause is legally "the conditions you agree to accept" to get all of the exclusive rights of section 106. Choose to not meet those conditions and you don't have any section 106 rights

And section 107 is fair use.

[CamTata]

etchings, 16th century and rare?

[CamTata]

Karl Marx thought the abolition of property rights was a good idea too, but history has shown otherwise. The welfare component of your argument is similar to the socialist idea of eliminating private property for the presumed public good.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by CamTata

Karl Marx thought the abolition of property rights was a good idea too, but history has shown otherwise. The welfare component of your argument is similar to the socialist idea of eliminating private property for the presumed public good.

an exclusive right to make copies of something is not a property right

Copyright takes away normal property rights that would normally exist for something (content) and replaces them with licences


If i buy a chair i don't have to ask the chair manufacture for permission to use that chair in any way i want.

I could even use it as a model to design a replacement chair.

Copyright takes those normal property rights away and replaces it with a permission based system.


so you are the one who is actually arguing against property rights when you argue for copyright.