RIAA: How Dare The Internet Use The DMCA That We Wrote To Build Useful Services!
from the calm-down,-sparky dept
As we’ve mentioned, today is the day that comments are due to the Copyright Office on the effectiveness (or not) of Section 512 of the DMCA, better known as the “notice and takedown” safe harbor provisions. We’ll be posting the details of our own filing at some point (possibly not until Monday as we’re still finalizing a few things), but some of the other filings are starting to filter out, including a fairly astounding 97-page document from a bunch of legacy music industry organizations (about half of which is the actual filing, with the rest being appendices), including the RIAA, ASCAP, AFM, NMPA, SoundExchange and more. It’s basically every organization that represents the way the industry used to work — and the document reads like an angry polemic against the internet. It would have been much shorter, if they just wrote “our business used to be much better when we had more control and less competition — and we never bothered to adapt, so fuck Google and all those internet companies — and let’s change the DMCA to punish them and magically bring back the good old days.”
Also, the filing seems to leave out the fairly important point that it was these groups that basically wrote the DMCA that they’re now whining about. Actually, let’s get even more specific. The comment here was co-written by lawyer Steve Metalitz — who has a way of showing up whenever some legacy industry is pushing to make copyright laws much, much worse. Metalitz’s own bio emphasizes the fact that, as a lobbyist, he was “instrumental in the drafting” of the DMCA:
The Music Community?s list of frustrations with the DMCA is long. A broken ?notice-and-takedown? system. Toothless repeat infringer policies. Active services mischaracterized as passive intermediaries. Incentives for services to embrace willful blindness instead of preventing known and widespread infringement. The words ?representative list? read out of the statute.
Basically, Metalitz uses the document as a chance to list off how he’s sad that the courts have basically ruled against copyright holders trying to chip away at the safe harbors at pretty much every turn:
Courts have also given little meaning to key provisions for content owners in the DMCA bargain. Examples include ?red flag? knowledge, repeat infringer policies and representative lists. The result: safe harbor status for services that choose to stick their heads in the sand rather than do their fair share, forcing content owners to divert valuable resources from away creating content to sending minimally effective take down notices, or for content owners with limited resources, to actually refrain from sending takedown notices at all. Content owners, especially those with limited resources, simply cannot take on the entire digital universe alone.
At its worst, the DMCA safe harbors have become a business plan for profiting off of stolen content; at best, the system is a de facto government subsidy enriching some digital services at the expense of creators. This almost 20 year-old, 20th Century law should be updated.
Astoundingly, this comment claims that the results in the YouTube and Veoh lawsuits prove how broken the DMCA is and how much it favors internet companies. Remember, Veoh was a YouTube competitor that won its lawsuit that had been filed by Universal Music… but went out of business due to the legal costs of defending itself under the DMCA. And Metalitz and the RIAA are bitching about the fact that Veoh won… as if that was the travesty in the case, rather than the fact that the recording industry was able to shut down a perfectly legal web service that many people found useful.
The comment goes on to whine that even as more music is available to the public these days, revenue is down for some of those who signed on to the comment (the comment is careful not to mention that ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SoundExchange revenue keeps going up… but… those inconvenient details must be ignored). What the filing also ignores, of course, is that these very same players fought tooth and nail against any of the innovative services that helped make this revolution in music accessibility possible. They basically now want to tax all the innovative companies who experimented and found the models that work and make consumers better off, while they themselves did none of that and actively sought to block nearly every new innovation. Talk about entitlement.
The comment also ignores the basic fact that if so much more music is being consumed today, that seems to suggest that the law must be working in some manner, seeing as the purpose of copyright law is to incentivize the creation of new works so that the public can benefit. By their own words, that seems to be happening.
Despite music being more popular than ever today, U.S. music industry revenues have been virtually flat since 2010 and are down nearly 50% since the DMCA was enacted in 1998. This has led to what we call the ?value grab?, creating market distortions that lead to bizarre statistics like vinyl records generating more revenue for the industry in 2015 than the billions of on-demand ad-supported music streams on YouTube and similar services.
Except, of course, that comparison between vinyl and YouTube is total bullshit. As we were just discussing a week ago, the industry is comparing apples and oranges, using the gross “retail value” on vinyl (ignoring discounts and all the money that goes to everyone in the distribution chain) and only counting the net “wholesale value” on free streams (and ignoring the upsell opportunities or other revenue that comes from ad-supported streams).
The summary so far: we wrote the DMCA, but now we’re going to whine about it. The public is benefiting like never before from new music — so we’re going to ignore that the purpose of copyright law appears to be met. We’re not making as much money as we used to (ignoring that some of us are making much more than we used to)… but we see big internet companies making lots of money, so we’re going to ignore that it’s probably because they innovated and built services the public wanted while we sued our own biggest fans.
Compelling!
And, of course, the comment pushes for a “notice and staydown” regime:
Copyright owners should not be required to engage in the endless game of sending repeat takedown notices to protect their works, simply because another or the same infringement of the initially noticed work appears at a marginally different URL than the first time. The current standard of ?URL by URL? takedown does not make sense in a world where there is an infinite supply of URLs. As described in the response to Question 15, technologies exist to identify content that is reposted on a digital service after it is removed, services of all sizes have implemented them, and they should be deployed as a standard industry practice.
Again, this ignores the basic fact that copyright is context dependent. And you can’t put a total block on content, because you don’t actually know if the content is actually infringing each time. Hell, remember in the Viacom case against YouTube (which the comment whines about), Viacom had to admit that the evil pirate uploaders to a bunch of the videos… were actually Viacom employees trying to market Viacom content. This is why we don’t do full on content blocks, because just because the content is up, doesn’t mean that it’s infringing.
Even more ridiculous, while at one point noting that almost no one files counternotices, so that means that DMCA takedowns are almost all legit (despite a recent study debunking this point), it later whines that there are too many false counternotices:
In our experience, the counter-notification process results in too many false-positive counter-notices. For example, IFPI received counter-notices on 653 infringements, based on a sample of 98,753 infringements noticed to YouTube. After reviewing these counter-notices, it appeared that over 80% of the counter-notices had no good faith basis for claiming ?mistake or misidentification,? the only valid statutory grounds for a counter-notification. Yet, based on this sample, the association representing the rights holders would be required to institute over 500 lawsuits in order to enforce their rights. This is an unmanageable burden. These statistics further demonstrate that the deck is unfairly stacked against rights holders.
Filing 500 lawsuits would be an “unmanageable burden?” Funny, the RIAA was able to go after at least 30,000 individuals. And, really, this paragraph acts as if filing a lawsuit is the only possible remedy in such a situation. It’s not.
Also, trying to make sure that they’re as evil and against the public and fans as much as possible, the comment actually decides to whine about the ruling in the dancing baby case, saying that it’s some horrible burden to have to consider fair use before sending a takedown, even though they just need a subjective good faith belief, rather than an objective one:
We take this opportunity to highlight one case in particular, Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. In that case, contrary to Congressional intent and the weight of authority concerning who has the burden of claiming and proving fair use, the court held that a copyright holder must subjectively consider fair use before submitting a DMCA notice. This unique decision, and the fanfare that has followed it, is quite remarkable considering that other courts have expressly rejected that view, and that the Supreme Court has routinely held that the burden of proof for a fair use defense rests on the accused infringer.
They also whine that the newly amended version of that ruling took out the random dicta that an automated takedown system could meet the standard.
Believe it or not, that’s just a sampling of all the ridiculousness in the comment. It’s simply not a reality-based document. One hopes that the Copyright Office might actually recognize that, though that seems unlikely.
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 512, liability, notice and staydown, notice and takedown, safe harbors, steve metalitz
Companies: ascap, nmpa, riaa, soundexchange
Comments on “RIAA: How Dare The Internet Use The DMCA That We Wrote To Build Useful Services!”
Shoot first, ask questions only if it makes it to court
Whining about how having to consider fair use before sending a DMCA claim is too difficult is basically whining that they aren’t allowed to target anything and everything without having to bother about such trifles as ‘collateral damage’ or ‘innocence’ first.
By that same logic people shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not a use of something might be infringing before posting it because doing so would just be ‘too difficult’, and they can always just take it down later if it reaches that point. ‘Accidents happen’ after all, if they want to use that excuse to cover for bogus DMCA claims regarding other people’s content because checking first is just too difficult, then they don’t get to complain when someone else uses it with regards to their content because checking whether or not the use might be infringing would take effort on the part of the poster.
On a semi-related note, it would almost be worth it to have them get what they are demanding here, if doing so resulted in sites having the guts to apply it fairly. If context doesn’t matter, and once claimed always down, then taking down an un-authorized post of a song or movie clip would result in the authorized version being taken down and blocked from being posted as well. After all without context the files are the same, the songs/clips are the same, so both need to be barred from being posted. Perhaps having entire services completely blocked from their use might drive the point into their thick skulls how stupid their demand really is.
Re: Shoot first, ask questions only if it makes it to court
Yup, exactly this. If your precious song is too good for the Internet then fine, it’s gone.
However I would be much more likely to go along with “notice and stay down” if one of the possible outcomes was loss of copyright. Whoops, that notice wasn’t filed in good faith. Your intellectual property now belongs to the Public.
Re: Re: Shoot first, ask questions only if it makes it to court
But then you’ll end up with people filing bogus bogus takedowns, to get the IP released to the public, and they’ll just be back complaining again.
It’s as if they don’t realize that their suggestions aren’t just bad for the public, they’re bad for THEM too — human nature will make what they want backfire even worse than what they’re stuck with right now.
Re: Shoot first, ask questions only if it makes it to court
I agree.
Wasn’t there a story a while back about how HBO hired an automated takedown company that filed takedown notices against its own HBOGo service? Well, sorry, you got a takedown notice so you have to take it down and keep it down.
4 Steps to Prosperity
1. Buy law to squelch competition
2. Complain law doesn’t do enough
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
Re: 4 Steps to Prosperity
The problem with creating laws to squelch competition is… what happens when you suddenly become the competition?
So it seems rather… rich, for the legacy music industry to hire Metalitz, who proudly states that he was “instrumental in the drafting” of the DMCA while lobbying on behalf of these same groups, to now write a jeremiad about how totally awful the DMCA is for these same groups. But that’s what’s happened.
Yes, he helped draft it. No, it’s not working like it’s supposed to. Totally consistent positions, Mike. You’re reaching, as per usual.
Re: the devil's in the details
“Yes, he helped draft it. No, it’s not working like it’s supposed to.”
Ya, but the actual reasons it’s not working like it’s supposed to are quite different from ones Metalitz proposed as were his reasons for helping draft the DMCA in the first place
So I guess they are totally consistent positions, all emanating from faulty logic.
Re: Re:
The positions are consistent only if his brief states that they made some mistakes the first time around that need addressing. Instead, they appear to complain about the very bits that he helped draft, pointing out how they’re being abused. Without admitting that the intent was to abuse them differently. Mike’s not reaching in this case, he’s assuming his readership can make the leap of logic needed here.
Imagine there’s a community sandox. Some of the kids get together and ask the park to cordon off a section of the box so they can make sand sculptures using their own equipment, and without the other kids messing it up just roughousing in the box. The park agrees.
However, then some of the kids in the roped off section notice that OTHER parts of the unroped off box are starting to act out plays using their creations as the setting.
They go back to the park complaining, and the park says “OK, you need to get permission before performing plays in the sandbox.”
However, kids keep performing the plays, so the roped off kids go back and complain again, telling the park “if you put in this system where if we catch kids doing it, they get kicked out of the sandbox immediately, that’s all we want.” So the park does this.
Suddenly, kids taking pictures of the creations, or just digging holes elsewhere in the sandbox are being kicked out, because the roped-off kids suspect they were really performing a play, or because they happened to be there while someone else was performing a play, or because the sandbox was crowded that day and the roped-off kids couldn’t be bothered to figure out who was doing what, so they just kicked them all out.
Now they’re finding that it’s all too much work, so they’ve gone back to the park to complain that the current system isn’t working, and they need kids permanently banned from the sandbox after they’ve been kicked out. One of the kids who helped set up the original agreement with the park is the spokesperson.
I hope that was helpful, or at least entertaining 🙂
Re: Re:
Yes, he helped draft it. No, it’s not working like it’s supposed to.
True. I guess he assumed courts would totally ignore all the token protections of free expression he assented to including, and just keep siding with large media corporations in all things. For him, the entire point of copyright law is to give the RIAA everything it wants at the expense of everyone else, he must indeed feel like it’s not working how it’s supposed to!
Re: Re:
When your premise is a total lie, the fact that the rest of your argument follows naturally (to your mind) is not surprising. But it is all still a lie.
Fuck the MAFIAA and their desired control of the internet.
“he was instrumental in the drafting of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), and has represented copyright industry groups …”
Ahh, so he has no interest in representing the public interest but has only represented private industry interests. Yet he was instrumental in the passage of laws that affect the public. So our laws are then not representative of the public but are representative of those that are instrumental in representing private interests.
Also if copy protection laws are really about the artists (though they should only be about the public) then why is the penalty structure one sided against artists that have their works falsely taken down? Why don’t artists and service providers that receive false takedown notices receive the same protections as copy protection holders that get their works infringed upon with equivalent penalties against those filing those bogus takedown requests? Is it because these laws are not intended to serve the artists?
Re: Re:
of course not, the law is representative of a legacy (and literally Communist, look at the similarities) service that has been outdated since the distribution of the Internet.
Re: Re:
So our laws are then not representative of the public but are representative of those that are instrumental in representing private interests.
You knew that already, right? 😉
The current standard of ‘URL by URL’ takedown does not make sense in a world where there is an infinite supply of URLs.
Said the guys who act like this in the world of an inifinite supply of copies.
LOL
“This almost 20 year-old, 20th Century law should be updated.”
Yeah, you kind of overshot with the M in DMCA, didn’t you? So now it’s antiquated, is it?
When have the RIAA, ASCAP, AFM, NMPA, SoundExchange ever created any content? They are organisations that buy other peoples content, or make money by acting as collection agencies for other peoples contents, with the latter mainly gaining benefit for the big artists at the expense of the rest of the artists creating content.
The organisations they are the ones that benefit from a gate keeper controlled market, while many artists can benefit from the free market enables by self publishing on the Internet. In reality these organisations are anti artists, as the control over publishing that they want benefits them much more than it does the artists.
The comment also ignores the basic fact that if so much more music is being consumed today, that seems to suggest that the law must be working in some manner
Hmm. No. Music is being produced in spite of the law.
The document and the citations in it, or most of them (I have just skewed through) seem to be a testament to how broken copyright is. Culture is the one that needs more protection from those vultures, not the contrary.
Steve Metalitz as DMCA drafter
“Given all of these fundamental changes, a law that might have made sense in 1998 is now not only obsolete but actually
harmful.”
Re: Steve Metalitz as DMCA drafter
…but not in the way he means it.
Re: Steve Metalitz as DMCA drafter
Correction: A law that might have made sense in 1976 is now not only obsolete but actually harmful.
Re: Steve Metalitz as DMCA drafter
So is that Metalitz admitting that no one should trust him to draft laws — and his laws don’t stand the test of time and may cause more problems than they solve?
If 80% of counter-notices were bogus, does that mean 20% of them were valid?
If they had their way, that 20% of what is most likely fair use would be blocked from the internet. That alone is a reason to maintain the current system.
Re: Re:
It’s worse then that. Those 20% were flat-out misidentified. Things like the auto-takedown-notifier sending notices to someone who had recorded birds tweeting or where the original creator’s name last name happened to be Usher.
Dollars to donuts says they are not counting a DMCA request against legitimate fair-use as a “mistake.”
Re: Re:
If that were the case, why do companies rarely claim rights to episodes of their shows that are completely unedited and are used for the YOUTUBER’S monetization instead of their own, but mainly, if not only, target reviews of their shows even if they are positive?
I mean, there are TONS of YouTube channels that monetise t.v. show episodes without any edits, and the are almost completely ignored by the companies. While the people who only review them are the ones being punished.
Re: Re:
If that were the case, why do companies rarely claim rights to episodes of their shows that are completely unedited and are used for the YOUTUBER’S monetization instead of their own, but mainly, if not only, target reviews of their shows even if they are positive?
I mean, there are TONS of YouTube channels that monetise t.v. show episodes without any edits, and the are almost completely ignored by the companies. While the people who only review them are the ones being punished.
Re: Re: Re:
Btw is anyone still here?
The US-based hosting provider that I work for provides services for somewhere in the neighborhood of a million customers.
We get approximately 100 DMCA notices per month, and only a small fraction of those are from *AAs and other large rightsholders.
I’m not saying that infringement doesn’t happen – it certainly does, and I’ve done my fair share of shutting down user accounts. However, to hear it from the *AAs, the sky is falling. But… 1,000,000+ customers, and only 100 notices/month? It doesn’t look that way to me. So, based on my individual experience… either there’s a ton of as-yet-unidentified infringement on my company’s network, the infringement is happening largely somewhere else, or it’s not nearly as bad as they make it sound.
“For example, IFPI received counter-notices on 653 infringements, based on a sample of 98,753 infringements noticed to YouTube”
If my math is correct, that is 0.66%. Not even 1%. Holy Mother of God! Such a burden.
It is also worth remembering that when it comes to issues of “freebooting” on Facebook, the complaints are in the opposite direction: that Facebook hides links to pirated content too well. After all, artists must be able to see where the piracy is happening! As they say.
And it all comes from folk who still haven’t done a thing about the Pirate Bay after 15 odd years. They are beyond serious consideration.
I have a simple solution Google can implement tomarrow to solve the problem
Delist these organizations, their members and all the their music. When a search is performed for them, pop up “we cannot show this due to Copyright concerns, but here is similar CC licensed music”
The DMCA system needs to be reworked
The current DMCA system operating on YouTube is causing numerous content creators to have their videos taken down despite the fact that they fall under Fair Use. It’s even happening to people uploading personally-created content that they own all the rights to. Now, in a day and age where the Internet is more important than ever to helping people build careers, many are (not unreasonably) afraid that they could loose everything they’ve created and posted at any given minute. This is not only jeopardizing their futures online, but the future of the Internet in general.
YouTube’s copyright system was put into place over a decade ago, and since then, the Internet has developed in ways never before imagined, and is more important to our world than ever. A new DMCA needs to be put into place for it to have the full beneficial impact. It will take some time to make it especially effective, but it’s an effort we need to all pitch in on to make possible, however long it takes.
Re: The DMCA system needs to be reworked
You’ve been watching Mr enter haven’t you?
DMCA
Ok. This is the real problem with this horribly easy to abuse system. The computers are not designed to look at both sides and see which one has more logic in their statement(s) and/or look at the copyright owner’s reasons for deleting content (the owner doesn’t like criticism is one of if not the biggest reason for these over obsessive takedowns all over the internet). It instead instantly goes over to the side of the owner without checking the content of the “victim” and and schedules it for takedown instantly. And it doesn’t even let the user state his/her claims until after the damage is done. It wouldn’t be that big of a deal if you let people send counter notifications while they still had time to fix it without any damage as well as being able to fight after the content is removed (Being as specific as possible so there aren’t was many loop holes here as there are with the DMCA). It still would be a problem but it would be a smaller one. But if you want to go all the way and make this system as flawless as you can you need to fix up any bugs, viruses, and hackers from your computer as possible and put in the codes that make the computer scan the content and see if it breaks TOO MANY copyright laws before deleting it. After a takedown or strike give the content user some time before he/she can be marked for copyright infringement again. Make the manner tedious for the owner so he only accuses copyright infringement on people who are really criminals. Don’t let them take the money that the content creators are making on the content they have unless they lose a copyright battle. Don’t restrict people every time they are accused of copyright infringement. Punish companies that create false information and copyright claims. The list goose on. All of these and more can help this system become balanced and not one sided. So creators don’t have to live in fear of being attack by the same people who are turning the DMCA into a way to silence people who give them criticism. This system is, now at least, a loophole farm, a wand that takes away criticism that’s sometimes very needed, a fear tactic that can strip away the person of his work, money, reputation, and voice and gives all of it to the person who did it to him/her. There have been cases where people I know or are friends with get attacked personally by these bullies, only stopping the nonsense when they get their letters posted by the people they tried to harass. Many people are fed up with being silent and decided to put an end to these horrible practices from an abused system that has been deceived for years. It’s become a joke that many people laugh at. And a fear that keeps people from posting anything fearing that their content if not their entire accounts get deleted. This system is not only a threat to the internet, but to all media, and we have to fix it fast. People have to deal with these things every other day and everyone is get at least one big copyright story every few months if not every month. If you want to save the internet please get this information out there. Find people who have their own stories about this and bring some of your stories to light. Though I will admit that I have never been a content creator so I have none of my own stories to tell, I have seen and heard some stories from content creators and how they follow all the copyright rules and didn’t even show footage of what they are talking about but still got copyright strikes and claims. People’s channels keep disappearing left and right and very few are able to get everything back. Every second these stories are stored away is another second we have to deal with this horrible system that punishes the innocent content creators and rewards the people who didn’t want to be criticised. I am Logan, and where’s the fair use? #WTFU
Re: DMCA
I know there were some spelling errors and I end up repeating my self a lot and I do want to apologize for it. And I knew about some example YouTubers like Mr enter, I Hate Everyting, and the nostalgia critic, but I thought those would draw away from the “statement” as we’ll call it. If you want to hear copyright horror stories, than go to the channels I showed as examples.
Re: Re: DMCA
Ok look.I’m just trying to spread my views about this copyright fiasco.I was as truthful as I could and yes I know about the spelling errors, i’m only 13 and don’t even have a Google account, which you NEED in order to get a YouTube account because YouTube is owned by Google. If you don’t agree with me and have good enough reason for it, I won’t fight back that much. If you have some good tips on how to make my comments and stories better (without being a jerk like that one guy who pretended to be my dad) then I will take it to heart. If you are just trying to shame me because you don’t think my opinion is correct and that I shouldn’t have a voice, then you are just like those DMCA users. I don’t know if you guys do this for fun, or if you do that so everyone will be a mindless clone of you. Either way I feel sorry for you. You can do almost anything else, but you instead attack other people who have a different mind set then you.I see this happen all the time and I get more and more angered everytime it happens. So if you are just trying to make me feel bad for fun, you are just hurting yourself. Get a different activity if dumbing people down is the only thing you can do. I will let you speak your opinions, but do it calmly and present evidence for your side. Don’t go all caps or spout out ramblings and insults just because I’m not a clone ok. I’m sorry both of these took so long to read though.
Re: Re: Re: DMCA
You can do almost anything else, but you instead attack other people who have a different mind set then you.I see this happen all the time and I get more and more angered everytime it happens.
You really need to learn to let it go or you’re going to have a stroke. The internet is full of that stuff.
Re: Re: Re:2 DMCA
If I didn’t have a stroke by then,I will probably not have a stroke for a really long time. Oh and I’m typing these on a kindle so the r e really isn’t an enter button.
Re: Re: Re:3 DMCA
And of course one of the words have spaces in them because of auto correct .
Re: Re: Re:3 DMCA
Oh and I’m typing these on a kindle so the r e really isn’t an enter button.
I didn’t believe you at first but it seems this is (partially) true. Amazingly stupid move by Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx33W47U3P6MKWF
Re: Re: Re:4 DMCA
And Amazon’s reputation goes down a tiny bit further.
Re: DMCA
Holy-moly, Logan. What’s with the wall of text? I thought I raised you better than that, son. Your mother and I are very disappointed at your lack of ability to find the “enter” key.
You’re grounded. One week of proper paragraph study for you!
Re: Re: DMCA
I think if you look at the time of the post (2:47 am), that might explain a lot…
Re: Re: DMCA
You do realize that making fun of other people will only hurt YOUR reputation right?
Re: Re: DMCA
Not to mention my last name is Rivera not Logan, so calling yourself Mr Logan makes your joke fall on it’s face.
Re: Re: DMCA
I am also typing this on a tablet so the enter key is even MORE iffy. If I never found out that this isn’t on of those sights that make the enter key the send key instead of the paragraph key (which I thank nasch for telling me about) I wouldn’t be using it here.
And GREAT job of pretending you’re my dad. I mean it’s not like I have a last name that is shown for you to see. And it’s not like my parents divorced when I was 2-3.
Oh wait BOTH OF THOSE ARE TRUE!
I’m pretty forgiving of the second one about may parents divorcing shortly after I was born, but not you’re ignorance to my last name. I mean come on it’s right t the top of this comment Logan RIVERA.
And not to mention that you’re kind of being a jerk since not only was I using auto correct which has iffy results, but you also made fun of my spelling in a really rude way.
I mean look at nasch, he can be kind of abrasive, but his heart is in the right place. This sight is heavily dependent on a user’s spelling.
You just act like a big shot as if you know ALL about EVERY word in the English language. Kind of like game theory and Matpat’s (the guy who dose all the math and science for video game theories) huge ego that gets to the point where he thanks he knows more about the games then the CREATORS.
Ok you aren’t THAT bad (and you probably won’t ever see this) ,but attacking a TEEN no less (I’m 14 at the making of this comment and was 13 when I firs wrote that comment up there where I SAID in an after statement that it wasn’t perfect and that you could give me constructive criticism by the way) when you are probably a young adult is just cruel.
Re: DMCA
Re: DMCA
Update:now YouTube is sometimes having errors and malfunctions when someone is trying to get rid of a claim or strike. It has actually gotten worse even with all this uproar.
The CEO even said they wanted to fix this officially broken system, and she STILL hasn’t done anything.
I know this is extreme but, I think all the companies that are trying to attack YouTube accounts are threatening to sue them if YouTube tries to fix the DMCA. And I bet you all known the reason why.
Bottom line, someone has GOT to sue these companies before they end up destroying YouTube. Both the YouTube company and the content creators at being victimized by these bullies
If this continues, we might have to do something extreme. Either sue ALL the companies that have taken down videos just because of the criticism. Or we ALL have to get off of YouTube from the most famous of content creators, to the accountless video watcher because this is getting out of control.
What do you think?
Re: Re: DMCA
Luckily I think they fixed the error. Just don’t think this will be solved at ANY point in the next 5-7 years.
The underlying dynamic here is:
Software engineers can work around douche bags faster that douche bags can corrupt the government.
There needs to be some consideration for lag time though. It is like taking a shit while skydiving. Eventually your going to need to slow down.
People who’ve been paying attention to the progressive increase in anti-hacker propaganda over the past several years are likely a little nervous about having to pull the rip cord. Should they be and why?
The only thing that those RIAA idiots achieve is more disrespect for ‘copyright’.
the DMCA crap
you assholes need to shut up! old fogies that cant fathom just how important and far reaching the internet is and that it is an important outlet for getting attention, just as much as an actual ad, instead they toss that out and instead look at us like whiners, and complainers, the assholes! if everything was truly fine, as they so desperately believe, we would have nothing to ‘whine’ about, but as it stands, there is something to whine about and it is us, the community, that need to give them a swift kick in their collective asses! the internet is for ALL of us, and should not be a place for companies to continue to abuse us,email the government directly and let them know of this outrage, that we wont sit quietly anymore, and that we wont take anymore bullshit! even after i read what little i wanted from the article above, i can tell that all they want, is to convince the government that they should be allowed to ignore fair use and do as they please to us, masquerading it as justified cause, when its total bullshit, they’re pissing on us and having the audacity to call it rain, and, ha ha, justified ‘rain’ at that, the fuckers, why do i have a sneaking suspicion that hollywood had a hand in this article, talking like as if their profits are suffering because of us, when we all know that’s total bullshit, like nostalgia critic said, the very people who escaped to hollywood to make film and music without being brought down, are now the ones taking us down, all under the guise of it being ‘the right thing to do because they shouldn’t be free like we are, to do as they please’ like a bunch of hypocritical babies, they know they’re wrong, but they keep on bitching anyway, we cant relent, keep emailing the government, repeatedly if need be, because we have to! if we dont, then the DMCA might as well not exist, in name or idea, and the internet will get knocked down to its basics again, like when it first started in the late 90’s, god, we cant let that happen, it’d be a HUGE step backwards, and thats what they want, to make the internet obsolete so that they, the companies, can benefit even more off revenue that they’d get if they could just kick the internet in the teeth harder than before, we have to stop them! dont let this topic fade, keep on them, the government and all of the internet, kick the companies in the teeth and asses, and let them know, we arent your toys! so stop playing with us like we are!again, if all was fine, there would BE no reason to complain, but all is not fine, and it doesnt matter how much anyone tells us that abusing copyright is their right, which bullshit if it is you assholes,we wont sit down and be quiet, we’ll tell you off, like we should, if the DMCA was perfect, then whats been happening, wouldnt be! and no one would be having any legal issues or constant battles with companies demanding ‘their share’ of money that does NOT belong to them, even those that DONT profit are getting hit, and its youtube’s lifeblood that is getting attacked, pretty soon, there wont be anything left but the few remaining famous yotubers, and what then…attack them too, so that youtube dies? again, think about it, if it did, and most other sites they deem ‘evil’, the internet would die out, or at the least, be reduced to rubble, meaning it’d go back to its basics, like i said, in the late 90’s, and i know that companies would grin joyfully at the prospect, not knowing that if they’d only use it like the rest of us, they’d get more attention and more potential revenue for their trouble, but alas, they’re too near sighted to see that, they just see us as toys to abuse and destroy, they have no hearts or souls, or real brains for that matter, so how could they possibly see us as actual human beings…the answer? they cant! they lack what real humans have, and thus, they have zero chance to understand, without force that is, why they’re wrong, and to listen more closely to us
Re: the DMCA crap
Paragraphs. Look into them – good feature.
Re: Re: the DMCA crap
I’m surprised you didn’t look into my comment
Re: Re: Re: the DMCA crap
I’m surprised you didn’t look into my comment
Because I don’t enjoy reading walls of text on discussion forums. Get a better tablet. 😉
RIAA/MPAA FUCK. YOU.
That basically sums it up
This shit, really companies?
Nothing like a blantant admittance that the companies want to use DMCA more for squelching opinion and keeping control then protecting their right to their products.
I’m all for protecting your stuff…without breaking in on everyone else’s rights and other laws. You know, fair use?
What. The. Hell.
Really? You’re stooping this low?! Too late, fuckers. You’re not getting this through without YouTube agreeing. AND THEY WILL NEVER AGREE! NEVER!!!
Re: What. The. Hell.
Dude, it’s over. They WILL agree. It’s only a matter of time before YouTube dies and Google is crippled.