The title is spot on re % using DMCA for dealing with the competition

your title sucks.

The legal landscape for IP looks like its going to be in for some big changes in 2012

Gideon, 30% + 37% is over 57%, so that "addition" has nothing to do with those business entities. The "addition" is meant as another finding, not math.

Your math skills are useless, just like your trolling on this board.

His trolling is better than Markham's. He always gets people to reply and show him attention. Always. Even though it is totally futile discussing ANYTHING with him.

Yes I noticed long time ago,in different discussions he argue against both "sides" in this matters. First he says one thing about a subject, then he says the quite opposite to another. Just for the sake of argument. That's trolling, obviously.

Exactly moron

as i said before

37% were non copyright complaints



that section did not include statutory defects

like bad filings


and jurisdictional issues

considering that sopa is designed to fix that problem (and therefore proves that the DMCA was never entitled to legally do this) those are all bogus complaint

They however were not counted AT ALL "a genuine dispute related to copyright infringement or defenses would clearly arise."

yes there was some overlap (ie privacy complaint misrepresented as a copyright complaint,
with missing information, targeting a non us company) but it was never 100%

that why 67% (against both competiting and non competiting companies) of all complaints were bogus and not (37+37+10= 84%)

I totally agree with you. Hosting providers and sites can't hide behind the "our users are responsible" argument, because the laws are very simple about it:

1) Copyright infringement is illegal
2) Assisting criminals and providing them with means to do what they do, is illegal too and might even make you part of a criminal organization
3) Every citizen is supposed to know the law

They want to provide surfers with a way to tube content, so it's them who are responsible for finding a method to prevent copyright violation.

Gideon, your math sucks. You have to multiply, not add the percents. :1orglaugh

Well the pirates and their lovers think otherwise. Mind you they can think the Earth would be better if it was flat, doesn't mean it will happen. :1orglaugh

I thing GG is really Filipino employed by Theo, for posting here to get the post count up. He would of got the Troll of the Year award, but he doesn't exist so not in the running. :1orglaugh

If I send a picture to AT&T from my phone and they send it to the 50 people I selected on my contact list, are AT&T then responsible for publishing it and should be held responsible if it was copyrighted?

In principle, there isn't a difference between that, and me doing it on facebook.

Many internet services are communication platforms, just as much as AT&T. You can't hold the provider responsible for the communication that takes place by it's users.

put your money where your mouth is

35k says your wrong

we can ask the author themselves

i am a hundred percent certain your wrong

because if you had to multiply that number it would mean that bogus complaints like the one made by universal against lenz (someone who was not competition could not exist).

and they quite clearly do.

like i said

there is overlap it however is not 100%

Re-state your above scenario and change "picture" to "picture of CP" and that you constantly do it and AT&T has been informed about it and it keeps happening but
AT&T doesn't give a shit and they continue to let your pics go thru.

Try that one.

Even in your example the law is clear, all AT&T has to do is turn the evidence over to the police be completely innocent.

That would be equal to Google saying to the copyright holder prosecute the pirate bay leave us out if it.

fuck DMCA

In an ideal world, WHAT would be a solution BOTH sides can AGREE on? Is there a HAPPY MIDDLE GROUND or are you guys saying it is just a matter of black or white?

DMCA tried to find a middle ground.... It's spawned a lot of headaches.

the problem is the DMCA didn't find the middle ground if it did it the penalty for making a bogus complaint would have been as sever as infringing on copyright.

you do realize that 11% of girls 13-16 are sexting (sending nude pictures and videos to their boyfriends)

so the senerio your using in your example is actually happening every single day.

not only is it allowed on the network, but AT&T would face privacy fines if they monitored that data being transmitted.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

you actually made an anti sopa arguement and you didn't even realize it

as ive said many times, should be heavy fine for sending fake DMCA. yes, most are bogus.

(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 infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1050891

Well actually you can. All you do is change the law.

And no it's not the principle of you doing it on FB. You're publishing the work and as it's on FB so are they. It's like if I send pictures of a girl to a magazine and they don't cross check I own the pictures and the girl gave her permission for them to be published, the magazine is at fault. Unless she is "news worthy".

Go see a lawyer who will explain it to you. And yes I've had it explained to me by a lawyer.

What some don't understand is the days of the Wild West Internet are coming to an end. Control, regulation Law and Order are coming. Whether they like it or not.

So if you don't own the rights to publish the content on http://www.faceporn.no/videos you're in the firing line from those who do and if those gave them to you don't own the rights. You're still in the firing line.

Will this mean FB has to change? No they are not a site dedicated to piracy.
Will you will have to change? Only if your site is dedicated to piracy, but it might be wise to double check where you get content from.

All these changes will do is weed out the crooked, pirates and scum. It will not effect those who spend money online, they will have a much cleaner Internet to spend their money on. Not 100% snow white clean, just cleaner as this law will make it harder for scum to get through. And that's the bottom line. $$$$$$$$$$$

If you're a freeloader who enjoys the benefits of free pirated goods, then you had better be ready to change your ways. Or not have so much selection of free goods.

Exactly. The DMCA should be tweaked to keep this business reality in mind.

so why do you object to a penalty that voids your copyright if you make a bogus complaint.

If legit sites are properly protected by this law, then bogus complaints should be stopped cold. And no one should lose their copyright.

If the law leaves to much space to be abused then the penalty will make potential abusers think twice about exploiting those flaws (like they are doing with the DMCA currently).

Is that 35K in US Dollars or in Chuck E Cheese Tokens? j/k either way, serious talk, man!

my totally liquid mutual funds has 36k in Canadian dollars which is about 35k US.