If you don’t follow tech news very closely, it’s likely you’ve heard the term “SOPA,” but you may not know exactly to what it refers.

You could be forgiven- in the barrage of politics-related news that crosses our news feeds each day- for missing this innocuous-sounding but potentially disastrous bit of legislation that is, without exaggeration, threatening the very fabric of the internet you know and love and stalk your exes with every day. But the anti-SOPA chorus got another loud and respected voice behind it this week, with an easy to understand (and share) piece by Mythbusters star Adam Savage.

Savage breaks down the real threat behind the Stop Online Piracy Act, also known as SOPA, and another bit of legislation, known as the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA.) In Savage’s wonderfully concise piece, he breaks down why we should fear and fight SOPA wholeheartedly by the second paragraph. If you’ve ever been served with a baseless DCMA takedown notice, you’ll appreciate even more why Savage’s warnings are so scary. He says:

Make no mistake: These bills aren’t simply unconstitutional, they are anticonstitutional. They would allow for the wholesale elimination of entire websites, domain names, and chunks of the DNS (the underlying structure of the whole Internet), based on nothing more than the “good faith” assertion by a single party that the website is infringing on a copyright of the complainant. The accused doesn’t even have to be aware that the complaint has been made… I’m not kidding.

Savage, who notes that the proposal would sound preposterous in fiction despite its sadly-real status, points out that similar, existing legislation (the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, or DMCA) has been used by non-copyright owners to remove content from sites like YouTube simply because the content ran contrary to their own personal agendas- despite the fact these individuals held no claim to the copyright of the material. (Kind of like that episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit when DA Cabot orders Elliot and Liv to illegally search an apartment, knowing the defendant couldn’t legally object to the search because someone else’s civil rights were violated.)

When the DMCA laws were passed thirteen years ago, the internet was a tiny acorn compared to the oak tree it is now. We had no idea how this particular innovation would shape our lives- how many of you have found your job, your spouse, your car, your home or just countless excellent friends on its various haunts, hangouts and networks? Unless you’re willing to suffer a watered down and possibly useless version more often associated with totalitarian regimes, Savage pointed out, you should do everything within your power to oppose SOPA and PIPA- and reject entertainment industry propaganda (a “truth annotated” version is viewable below) willing to trade a few potential bucks in potential revenue for the single most important innovation of our lifetimes.

SOPA Will Destroy the Internet, Mythbuster Adam Savage Warns is a post from: The Inquisitr

The law firm criticized for their “copyright trolling” in an attempt to wring money out of internet users for engaging in nefarious activities such as viewing a YouTube video or quoting an news piece on a message board were majorly smacked down by a judge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation gleefully reports.

Righthaven is dedicated to enforcing copyright laws- regardless of who the copyright holder actually is. Awesomely, though, judges apparently don’t look kindly on this kind of suit. The EFF’s press section reports:

In dismissing Righthaven’s claim in its entirety, Chief Judge Hunt’s ruling decisively rejected the Righthaven business model of conveying rights to sue, alone, as a means to enforce copyrights,” said Laurence Pulgram, head of copyright litigation at Fenwick & West in San Francisco. “The ruling speaks for itself. The court rejected Righthaven’s claim that it owned sufficient rights in the copyright, stating that claim was ‘flagrantly false–to the point that the claim is disingenuous if not outright deceitful.’”

Judge Hunt also noted that “Righthaven has made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the Court” and rejected Righthaven’s efforts to fix things after the fact with a May 9, 2011, amendment to the original assignment agreement. The judge expressed “doubt that these seemingly cosmetic adjustments change the nature and practical effect” of the invalid assignment.

As part of his ruling today, the judge ordered Righthaven to show why it should not be sanctioned for misrepresentations to the court. The Court permitted Democratic Underground’s counterclaim to continue against Stephens Media — the publisher of the Review Journal — allowing Democratic Underground to show that it did nothing wrong in allowing a user to post a five-sentence excerpt of a 50-sentence article.

The EFF expressed hope this was the end of this sort of infringement on “free and open” expression on the internet. Do you think this ruling will stop Righthaven?

[via BoingBoing]

Judge Dismisses ‘Copyright Troll’ Righthaven Lawsuit is a post from: The Inquisitr

I have to say, if you’re going down for torrenting a movie, you could have probably been sued for something far better than The Expendables.

Perhaps the US Copyright Group wants to add insult to injury by threatening BitTorrent users for something as eminently sucky as the film Rolling Stone called a “limp-dick bust” with a $150,000 judgment each. March 17th, a judge gave the group permission to subpoena contact information from the tens of thousands of users who downloaded the flick. (Although it sounds like the US Copyright Group could be a government agency, they’re actually a collective of lawyers who sniff around for a cut of suits like these, tricky.)

The filing is expected to be the largest of its kind to date, and if users refuse to settle for fines of about $3,000, they could be found liable for possible damages of $150,000. If the suit is successful for the lawyers group, expect to see many more of its ilk springing up in hopes of wringing money out of potential pirates. Another suit is already in the works, targeting 15,000 suspected porn-pirates.

US Copyright Group preps suit against 23K+ BitTorrent users is a post from: The Inquisitr

Grooveshark is often attacked for its “too good to be true” business model- after years of watching the RIAA win astronomical judgments against file-sharers and the whole Napster brouhaha, users are wary of getting their asses hauled into court for streaming a Katy Perry song.

Indeed, many people at this point are jaded about even listening to a track they haven’t paid someone, somewhere 99 cents for, and reps from the service have been attacked on social media sites for that very reason. Users have become extremely efficient at handing over rights and freedoms for fear of possibly violating those of a corporation just in principal, which is kind of sad. Grooveshark has struck back at this attitude in an open letter, asserting that their service operates legally and under DMCA protection.

In an open letter on Digital Music News, Paul Gellar of Grooveshark strikes back at the idea that if a service is convenient to music consumers and intuitive to use, it somehow must be illegal:

Yet some are confused as to how we are legal.  First, there is a distinction between legal and licensed.  Laws come from Congress.  Licenses come from businesses.  Grooveshark is completely legal because we comply with the laws passed by Congress, but we are not licensed by every label (yet).  We are a technology company, and we operate within the boundaries of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA).  Some would have you believe that those of us who use the DMCA to innovate are inherently infringers and that claiming Safe Harbor under the DMCA is as good as admitting guilt.  Not so.

(One space after periods, Gellar, one space. You’re messing up my formatting.) Gellar points to action the service has taken to prevent infringement and protect copyright as an argument against the service breaking laws willy-nilly:

We pay for our streams, and we actively negotiate with virtually every single content owner. We’ve taken down over 1.76 million files and suspended upload privileges to 22,274 users.  These are not the characteristics of a company “dedicated to copyright infringement”.  As we work with artists and labels to make more content available to our users, Grooveshark becomes more competitive as an alternative to piracy.

Gellar continues:

In light of the recent misleading press concerning Grooveshark’s application, it is important to make clear that we will defend our service, and the letter and the spirit of the law, in court and in Congress. We will defend our name and our ideals for the sake of our users who expect modern delivery systems and comprehensive access across devices, for the sake of artists and content owners who fear another decade of decline, and for other innovators who continue to bring new ideas to market through the expression of creativity in the form of technology.

The letter concludes with a plea for Google and Apple to restore the Grooveshark app to their respective app stores. It will be interesting to see how Grooveshark’s status shakes out, but sadly, it doesn’t seem the app’s team will be able to stand up to the massive corporate interests seeking to suppress the service. Do you think Grooveshark has a shot, or are they already fighting a losing battle?

Grooveshark challenges Android market removal, says “nothing illegal” about the service is a post from: The Inquisitr

Well, this is kinda whack.

YouTube is now forcing alleged copyright infringers to watch a PSA starring the Happy Tree Friends in which the blue otter pirate is beaten over the head with a gavel several times as punishment for infringing on a copyright. Even watching Russell throughout the video, unable to do anything right and repeatedly running up against the cyberpolice for his sharing activities, is pretty nerve-wracking. It kind of makes you feel like you’re infringing a copyright right now somewhere and you’d better stop lest you get a wooden hammer beatdown, too.

If you get in YouTrouble, you’ll be forced to watch the old-style PSA to be schooled on Fair Use and your errant, copyright-peeing-on ways. Then you get to do a test, and if you pass the test, your video posting privileges are restored. The clip also touches on counter-notices of infringement, in case you’ve been wrongly singled out for a gavel-whacking.

Clip below- what are your thoughts on YouTube’s efforts to have users police themselves?

[Video] YouTube sends naughty users to “Copyright School” is a post from: The Inquisitr

A little over a month ago, we posted about the Las Vegas law firm seeking to squeeze dollars out of bloggers and regular everyday internet users via a creative use of copyright law and re-interpretation of statues to retroactively render viral material on the internet protected intellectual property.

Such a notion should be pretty terrifying if you ever pass on a funny image or video, and more so if you write for or maintain your own blog. (If you pass on chain letters, you pretty much deserve to be sued for something.) But the “copyright trolls” (as Ars Technica so aptly dubbed them) suffered a key loss in court recently that should be mildly encouraging to internet users curious to see how it all pans out.

It’s kind of satisfying, too, that Righthaven seems to have slightly advanced the cause of its many opponents. In a recent ruling regarding fair use, a federal judge actually supported the reproduction of entire articles- a practice most bloggers try to avoid precisely to prevent this sort of legal threat. Federal Judge James Mahan exercised a pretty commendable judicial smackdown:

Judge Mahan told both sides that the purpose of copyright law was to encourage creativity and to disseminate public access to information, so long as that did not unfairly hinder the market for the original story. In this case, Mahan said that the tiny Oregon nonprofit had essentially zero overlap between the readers of its website and the readers of the Review-Journal. In addition, the effect on the “market” for the work is unclear, since Righthaven is solely using the copyright to prosecute a lawsuit, not to defend its news operations (it has none).

The chances of Righthaven taking their ball and going home at this stage of the game are slim, but the two rulings cited in the above links show promising precedent against future actions of a similar nature. What do you think about Righthaven’s lawsuits? Should judges be intolerant of law firms using the court in such a way?

“Copyright trolling” law firm Righthaven loses pivotal case is a post from: The Inquisitr

Via Fark comes a story about this terrifying new practice, spearheaded by a law firm in Vegas and aimed at wringing money out of bloggers and even sometimes message board commenters in a legal strategy that- if it catches on- threatens the very foundation of the web, sharing wrong, shocking or funny pictures.

The blogging masses love to find content that goes viral- sure, traffic and resultant dollar signs is a motivation, but far more of the thrill of sharing pics and other things that blow up internet-wide is the web’s biggest driving motivation- being first. But if Righthaven has its way, the internet could become a whole lot less friendly and about open sharing and dispersal of information. That’s because- in a nutshell- their whole business model is based on copyrighting content which has gone or is about to go past that tipping point of web infamy, and then suing the snot out of you, the user, who posts one of their newly copyrighted images or pieces of content on a blog, a forum, or a social aggregation site.

Wired first covered Righthaven in a piece last year aptly titled “Copyright Trolling for Dollars,” describing CEO Steve Gibson’s strategy as favoring shakedown over takedown:

Gibson’s vision is to monetize news content on the backend, by scouring the internet for infringing copies of his client’s articles, then suing and relying on the harsh penalties in the Copyright Act — up to $150,000 for a single infringement — to compel quick settlements. Since Righthaven’s formation in March, the company has filed at least 80 federal lawsuits against website operators and individual bloggers who’ve re-posted articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, his first client.

Interesting too are the relatively paltry sums wrested from your average web user for posting newly copyrighted content- one to three large, which as far as lawyer money goes, is chump change. The name of the game for Righthaven is settlements, terrifying Joe Poster into scaring up the funds to avoid getting cleaned out at trial. The law should take a dim view of this- DMCA takedown notices have worked well in the past at protecting copyrighted content without tying up judicial resources.

All things considered, even if this one law firm devotes all its resources to copyrighting content and suing users of Reddit, Fark and its ilk, most web users should be able to continue sharing with impunity without too much fear. But if the practice catches on and other law firms scent blood in the water- a possible outcome, to be sure- such a practice could have terrible implications for the way the web works.

Do you think this legal strategy will have lasting implications for the way viral information travels on the internet? Is this what copyright laws really exist to protect?

[Image]

Vegas law firm pioneers frightening strategy to sue everyone on the internet is a post from: The Inquisitr

Well that didn’t take very long did it.

Early this morning Leander Kahney from the Cult of Mac blog was contacted by Apple PR over this silly idea of jailbreaking the iPhone in light of the new DMCA exceptions.

I just got a call from Apple’s PR department to discuss today’s historical DMCA exception ruling that makes iPhone jailbreaking legal.

Unfortunately, because of the legal issues involved, the Apple spokeswoman would only provide me with the following statement on the record:

“Apple’s goal has always been to insure that our customers have a great experience with their iPhone and we know that jailbreaking can severely degrade the experience. As we’ve said before, the vast majority of customers do not jailbreak their iPhones as this can violate the warranty and can cause the iPhone to become unstable and not work reliably.”

It’s short and sweet: Apple wants to control the iPhone experience to keep things simple and stable. Jailbreaking opens the door to software that can ruin that experience (and maybe steal your identity or spread viruses). For more information about Apple’s stance on jailbreaking, see this support document: Unauthorized modification of iOS has been a major source of instability, disruption of services, and other issues.

There you have it folks. Go ahead and jailbreak your iPhone but don’t expect any love from Apple if you do regardless of what the law says.

Apple PR moves to squelch jailbreaking joy among the faithful is a post from: The Inquisitr

Exceptions to the DMCA announced today have decreed that jailbreaking of iPhones is no longer an illicit activity to be carried out under the cover of night, among a few other bones thrown to the consumer.

James H. Billington, a “Librarian of Congress,” released a few notable exclusions from the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and aside from the iPhone/jailbreaking clause, provisions were made for sharing content for “criticism”or “comment”:

(1)  Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;

(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos

After that, the issues regarding restriction of cellphone/smartphone function and “unapproved” apps are tackled in two clauses:

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

The last point tackled by the announcement deals with e-books, which might end up being an even bigger facet of the new rules than the fate of one set of users owning/using one handset. The Library of Congress says:

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

While a discussion never should have been on the table about what people can and cannot do with devices they own, it’s kind of cool to have it officially decreed by the Library of Congress. Do the new rules seem like kind of a big deal? Will companies just look for new ways to lock down content and devices?

Jailbreaking your iPhone totally cool according to new DMCA rules is a post from: The Inquisitr

Well YouTube can breath easy now.

The official YouTube blog has a post up announcing its win over Viacom in their long running court case. The court issued a summary judgement which means that the court decided that YouTube was indeed protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) when it comes to charges of copyright infringement.

Kent Walker, Vice President and General Counsel for Google, said this in his post

This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other. We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world.

I’m betting a few champagne corks will be flying around the Googleplex tonight.

YouTube gets to tell Viacom to #suckit – wins case is a post from: The Inquisitr

YouTube Chief Counsel Zahavah Levine posted some interesting things today on YouTube’s official blog about Viacom’s strange, love-hate relationship with the video streaming giant.

I am not a lawyer©, but the allegations made certainly seem like Viacom is using the legal system to bully YouTube merely because Viacom resents its existence. (The post alleges that Viacom vacillates between trying to shut the site down and trying to purchase it. If I can’t have you, no one will!) Levine makes an excellent case for the absurdity of Viacom’s actions against YouTube:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt “very strongly” that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Bolding mine. On first glance, it looks like Viacom never watches Judge Judy. If I’ve learned one thing from TV judges, it’s that the law’s impartial guardians do not like to be misled or lied to, and if you’re acting in a shady fashion, you have less legal ground to stand on. I believe the deliberate obfuscation of where content was uploaded from and by whom would certainly rankle Judge Sheindlin. Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining, Viacom!

Interestingly, it seems that Viacom doesn’t even know which clips are the offending clips and have actually complained in court about videos uploaded by Viacom employees on behalf of Viacom. Awkward.

Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Levine points out the idiocy quite concisely. Take it away, Counselor:

Given Viacom’s own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out. The legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube — and every Web platform — to investigate and police all content users upload, and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they get it wrong.

While the reasons behind such a legal move are certainly complex and impossible to sum up in a few sentences, it would seem that Viacom has a bit of a bone to pick with YouTube and is using litigation to attempt to slow the competition down. Levine caps the post by asserting that they “look forward to defending YouTube, and upholding the balance that Congress struck in the DMCA to protect the rights of copyright holders, the progress of technological innovation, and the public interest in free expression.”

What do you think? Is this like some roundabout form of corporation-level civil entrapment? Should Viacom be able to sue for their own violations, against themselves?

Fun with copyright laws: YouTube says Viacom uploaded own videos, sued is a post from: The Inquisitr

Times are tough for the media industry, and any way to raise funds and abuse copyright law seems to be fair game, at least if you’re Time Inc.

We received a DMCA takedown notice and a demand for $1500 today from Time Inc for running a shot of the cover of People Magazine.

The cover is fair use, and People Magazine was rightly credited. But what is confounding is that the SAME COVER is currently on just about EVERY MAJOR NEWS SITE on the planet (the screenshot is taken from my local paper The Age.) Indeed, People Magazine has in the past offered covers to news sites as part of their promotional efforts.

I’ve taken the picture down, and instead embedded video of a local news report from NBC Austin that shows THE EXACT SAME COVER.

Our delightful new host Rackspace has also threatened to suspend our account over the original image, despite the very clear fact that it was NEVER hosted on their servers: all images being uploaded to this site are hosted on Amazon S3/ Cloudfront.

Here’s the DMCA request and licensing demand in full. I won’t be paying the $1500: this is an abuse of the DMCA and clearly constitutes fair use.

The Inquisitr
PO Box 8164
Camberwell North VIC 3124 Australian

Re: Copyright Infringement – DMCA Takedown Notice

Dear Sir or Madam:

We have been instructed by the Law Department of Time Inc., the corporate publisher of People Magazine and People.com to put you on notice of a copyright infringement. It has come to our attention that you have posted without permission or compensation, People Magazine’s October 26, 2009 cover of Jaycee Dugard from People.com, (the “Unauthorized Work”) on your website, “www.inquisitr.com” at http://www.inquisitr.com/42524/pics-jaycee-dugard-does-first-interview-with-people-mag/ (the “Website”).

Your publication of the Unauthorized Work is an infringement of the copyright of Time Inc. Attached with this letter is a copy of the Time Inc. Work.

This letter is an official notification under the provisions of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We hereby demand that “www.inquisitr.com” immediately cease and desist from infringing the copyrighted material of Time Inc. and confirm in writhing that it will do so and that it will not republish the Unauthorized Work.

In addition, we hereby demand that “www.inquisitr.com” reimburse Time Inc. in the amount of U.S. $1,500 (U.S. $1,500.00 per image) for its unlawful act. We reserve all rights to take legal action.

I have a good faith belief that use of such copyrighted material would not be authorized by of Time Inc., its licensing representatives, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I hereby swear under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of Time Inc. for matters pertaining to notification of infringement of its exclusive rights in its copyrighted material.

Sincerely,

Dhiraj Merchant
Mindcrest Inc.
One East Wacker Drive, Ste. 2900
Chicago, IL 60601
time@mindcrest.com

Time Inc’s New Scam: Abusing the DMCA is a post from: The Inquisitr

Googling for “The Pirate Bay” returns a different set of results today, as Google has responded to a DMCA complaint requesting the change.

Instead of the results you may have come to expect, pages have been removed with this disclaimer at the bottom of search results:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 8 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org. ee

Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde addressed the action in a series of tweets this morning (edited to remove usernames):

Ok, someone from Google can please reply: why is “thepiratebay.org” (the frontpage) removed from your index?

Well, the frontpage of TPB certainly does not infringe on any copyright, in any way or form. It’s a competitor to Google though.

can you check how it came that Google decided to filter out “thepiratebay.org” frontpage from it’s index?

only the frontpage is gone. thepiratebay.org has no filetype:torrent really, only torrents.tpb has that.

Google has not addressed the decision directly, and results using Bing have not been altered. Aside from the homepage and seven other pages on the site, other Pirate Bay pages are still accessible via Google.

UPDATE: Google says it was a mistake:

“Google received a (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) takedown request that erroneously listed thepiratebay.org, and as a result, this URL was accidentally removed from the Google search index,” Google said in a statement. “We are now correcting the removal, and you can expect to see thepiratebay.org back in Google search results this afternoon.”

Google removes Pirate Bay from search results is a post from: The Inquisitr

Lawyers representing Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black have today threatened to sue The Inquisitr for a screenshot of perezhilton.com we included in a post.

The shot we ran included one picture from the set of pictures published by Perez Hilton that showed Black having sex with another man. The picture, which constituted approx one third of the screenshot, showed Blacks head, but certainly nothing more or less.

Ironically in the post we discussed the issues surrounding the publication of the pictures, and why we weren’t interested in running them.

Black’s lawyers claimed copyright over the screenshot, claiming that Black owned ultimate copyright over the partial image. We objected on two grounds: the picture was clearly taken by a third party, and the lawyers provided no supporting evidence that copyright was held by Black. Second, as a screen grab from another site, the image as a whole constitute fair use under US copyright law, and fair dealing under Australian copyright law.

Despite filing a counter claim noting the valid objections and asking for a valid response, the lawyers continue to threaten this site and our host Media Temple without providing the evidence requested (and required under the DMCA), using terms such as “You act at your own peril” and “govern yourself accordingly.” I’m not going to play martyr over one image, so we’ve censored the shot by blacking out the bit they were upset about.

I will however this week consider lodging a complaint under Australian law for the coercive and threatening nature of their correspondence. I’ve dealt with DMCA claims in the past, both lodging them and receiving them, and this would have to be the most unprofessional, bullying correspondence I’ve seen yet.

One last thing: when we wrote about Dustin Lance Black I actually felt a bit sorry for the guy given what had been published elsewhere. That is no longer the case. Dustin Lance Black: not that you’ll probably ever read this, but if you do, we’re having a party the day you get hit by a bus. Your legal tactics only prove that you got your just desserts.

PS: Image above is used under CC license from Wikipedia: see here.

Here’s only one part of nearly a dozen emails.

Re: D. Lance Black / Copyright Violations – DMCA Notice

Dear Website Operator:

We are representatives/attorneys for D. Lance Black, and we are writing with respect to our client’s claims arising from violations of his intellectual property rights with regard to copyright infringement, as well as violations of his right of privacy and publicity. Mr. Black holds all rights, title, interest and copyright to the photographic materials, portions of which are posted on your website.

Included herewith is a DMCA Notice of Infringement for the post that appears on your website, which posts, displays and disseminates without authorization a photos (the “Unauthorized Photos”) which violates our client’s copyright. Our client has not authorized nor licensed the use of his copyright in conjunction with the creation, posting, dissemination or exploitation of infringed materials on your website. Accordingly, we request that you immediately remove the unauthorized posting and dissemination of the Unauthorized Photos pursuant to the following DMCA notice.

NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT

I, the undersigned, CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that I am the owner or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of certain intellectual property rights, said owner being named Dustin Lance Black (“IP Owner”). I have a good faith belief that the materials identified hereto are not authorized by the above IP Owner, its agent, or the law and therefore infringe the IP Owner’s rights according to state, federal and/or US law. Please act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the listed material or items claimed to be infringing.

Infringed Work or Right: Copyright Violations
Item/Material – Website/URL Location(s):

http://www.inquisitr.com/26037/dustin-lance-black-photos/

http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/dustin-lance-black-trevor-hero-award.jpg

Thank you for your anticipated immediate cooperation and immediate compliance with US Copyright Law.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, I may be contacted at via reply to the listed address or at the above listed address and phone number.

If you fail to comply with this notice and expeditiously remove the infringing content, you will be held liable.

You act at your own peril.

Govern yourself accordingly.

This letter does not constitute a complete or exhaustive statement of all of my client’s rights, claims, contentions or legal theories regarding this matter. Nothing stated herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my client’s rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved. This is a confidential legal notice and may not be published, in whole or in part.

Truthfully,

BARRY DALE JOHNSON
8409 Santa Monica Blvd. West Hollywood, CA 90069
p: 323.822.4813 | f: 323.822.4880 | c: 213.944.8303
bjohnson@id-pr.com

Dustin Lance Black lawyers threaten to sue us despite not running the XXX pics is a post from: The Inquisitr

No this isn’t another story about Warner Brothers sending their RIAA or MPAA storm troopers after a single mom or an ailing grandmother. Those they would probably succeed into forking over a pound of flesh for some perceived crime against humanity. Their latest victim of a DMCA takedown notice on YouTube is a horse of a different color.

Yup folks, they have pulled the ultimate boner by going after none other than the King of Fair Use himself – Larry Lessig. I shit you not as you can see from Larry’s tweet to the world when it happened

When asked on Twitter if he would be fighting the takedown notice Larry’s reply was

Way to go Warner Brothers. you couldn’t have picked a better way to show the world just how stupid you are and how little you understand how things work anymore.

Yet another really dumb move by Warner Brothers is a post from: The Inquisitr

Copyright laws around the world are in the process of being re-written and in many cases they are a draconian move into the the past with us – the users – being made out to be the worst criminals in the world. With secret meetings being held by world governments in order to get the entertainment backed ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) passed there is an increasing push to increase Internet censorship and people’s access to the Internet being removed by accusations alone.

The newest country to fall in line with this is New Zealand whose new copyright law would see supposed file shares kicked offline based on accusations rather than court convictions. As part of the hearings around this new copyright law entertainment lawyers have been making the rounds telling everyone in the government that the backbone of the ability to take down illegal things on the Internet – otherwise known as the DMCA – isn’t that bad since bogus take downs are in fact very rare.

Enter Google who in written submissions and the numbers to back it up say that the exact opposite is the case (emphasis mine)

In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.

As such, Google says "Section 92A puts users’ procedural and fundamental rights at risk, by threatening to terminate users’ internet access based on mere allegations and reverse the burden of proof onto a user to establish there was no infringement."

It goes on to say, "Section 92A undermines the incredible social and economic benefits of the open and universally accessible internet, by providing for a remedy of account termination or disconnection that is disproportionate to the harm of copyright infringement online."

The submission also takes issue with the claim that user education is stated as a “primary purpose” of the draft code, "but there is little reference to education about users’ rights, including limitations and exceptions enabling lawful use of copyright protected works, in addition to their obligations."

Source: PC World Magazine – New Zealand

I may not be the biggest fan of Google but in this case I throw them the high five.

Google provides some slapdown on who really serves DMCA notices is a post from: The Inquisitr

We’ve had some interesting run-ins with YouTube before over copyright. In December USA Today claimed copyright of a Digg demonstration video we uploaded, and given YouTube seemingly ignores complaints, USA Today to the best of our knowledge is still gaining revenue from a video that had nothing to do with them.

But usually copyright claims happen after a video is already on the site, with YouTube following the DMCA safe harbor provisions to take videos down that are subject to claims. But not any more.

We regularly receive pitches from various people, including reps for movie companies. On January 23 we received an email from one of our regular PR contacts (and we’re always grateful for the emails, even if we don’t always run them) for the upcoming film Sunshine Cleaning. The email included links to private downloads for the movie, including a trailer and poster. I downloaded the trailer this morning, ran it through iMovie for processing, then uploaded it to YouTube so we could run it on The Inquisitr. Note that the trailer had been sent so we could run it on the site, so we had permission to do so from an authorized representative of the copyright owner.

Imagine then my surprise that after the clip had finished prcoessing, YouTube immediately identified it as being in breach of copyright and didn’t allow it to go up.

I was then redirected to an option where by I could lodge a dispute to the claim; the end result in the picture above.

To YouTube’s credit the movie was quickly included again, but the process still begs the question: why has YouTube seemingly abandoned the DMCA process in favor of blocking material upfront, and automatically presuming that the uploader isn’t authorized to share the material?

No doubt the MPAA and RIAA will be happy with YouTube’s now authoritarian stance on copyright, but as a user it completely stinks, and offers no fair and due process in these matters. Once upon a time we would have expected better from Google/ YouTube, that’s obviously no longer case.

YouTube Now Blocks Copyright Material First, Asks Questions Later is a post from: The Inquisitr

The legalities leading to the current situation aren’t always clear. Both the McCain and Obama campaigns have been hit with DMCA claims for using songs and video without permission. Some videos included nothing more than a mixture of clips from news services, where as others used extracts only; the latter in particular would constitute fair use, but that would be a matter for the courts on a case by case basis.

The McCain campaign objects to YouTube’s DMCA policies on two fronts: the takedown of McCain campaign videos, and the time the counter-notice procedure takes to be processed by YouTube, around 10-14 days. The processing side is understandable: the campaigns want their videos up on the site, they are embedded on other sites (and they can’t replace the same embeds with alternative video once taken down), and 14 days later isn’t quick enough when the videos are often topical to that day, let alone the week, or the broader campaign. That YouTube should offer expedited processing to political campaigns is a matter of choice for YouTube: they aren’t obliged to do so, even if it might win them a little support from both campaigns. However, it’s also a pandora’s box, because once YouTube starts giving exceptions for some, others will be lining up to demand the same treatment.

The interesting part is the McCain campaign’s request that YouTube ignore the DMCA in terms of take downs, a law that McCain himself voted for in the Senate. The campaign argues in a letter (full copy below) that immediate takedown of material following a DMCA notification is “unnecessary” under the DMCA:

“nothing in the DMCA complies a host like YouTube to comply automatically with takedown notices, while blinding itself to the legal merit (or as here, their lackoff). The DMCA provides hosts with a safe harbor from liability for infringement, but there is no need for a safe harbor where, as here, there is no infringement in the first place”

The problem with that statement is two fold: one, the DMCA calls on content to be taken down first, second, the act doesn’t dictate that hosts should make the call on copyright.

There is some ambiguity on the speed at which the takedown should take place. From § 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online (c)(1)(C)

upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

(c)(1)(A)(iii) also deals with the need to take down material following notification.

upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

The key word here is “expeditiously.” The industry has always taken that to be as soon as possible, with the notice coming afterwards. McCain’s campaign are arguing that this isn’t the case, and that YouTube can consider the validity of each claim prior to takedown. The whole idea of safe harbor is one that excludes the host from the copyright claim altogether. For YouTube to start making the call on the validity or other wise on a DMCA notice deals YouTube into every claim it makes that call on…and that’s an army of lawyers salivating for inclusion. That they would keep content up to consider the validity of each claim, would seemingly go against the need to act expeditiously dictated in the act itself.

If there’s one good thing to come out of this letter, it’s that at least one campaign now understands the problems of the DMCA. Maybe, just maybe after the election, someone might look at reviewing the laws as they stand, and to make them more friendly to fair use, and stronger against those who seek to use the laws unjustly.

(in part via NewTeeVee)

McCain Campaign asks YouTube to ignore the DMCA is a post from: The Inquisitr

Sadly the new media and technology sector are moving in the same direction. Extremism on both sides is creating an us and them divide where moderate thought is drowned out by the fanaticism on either side.

Copyright

I’d consider myself a moderate on copyright. The notion of allowing inventors and creators to profit from their work is enshrined in the US Constitution, and copyright law itself dates back to England before that. I believe that copyright as it was originally intended is a noble cause that encourages development and creativity. And yet today that original notion of copyright has been poisoned by the greed of big media and music, geared not to offering some just reward for creators, but in lining their own pockets for the rest of time. Copyright laws that once lasted 20 years have been replaced by the life of a creator + 70 years, a move that only benefits big business at the loss of the public domain. Worse still is the use of DRM and other artificial restraints, that seek to take copyright to new levels of stupidity, where those who buy the rights to use copyright protected items are limited in how they privately use them. It’s the ultimate greed tax imposed by law makers beholden to the next campaign contribution from those with an interest in profiting from those laws.

But lets take the other side, one that calls for the complete abolition of copyright law with a notion that intellectual property is imaginary property. If find it very easy to sympathize with their call, and there is no argument that Creative Commons and the Public Domain give to the greater good. But in a world without copyright, where we would be free to take and use as we please without the need for some compensation, what incentives would there be for creators to create if they are unable to profit from their creations?

I’m not talking music, which is an interesting adjunct, as the music itself can be used as a promotion tool for things like concerts. I’m talking real inventions, world changing inventions. It is not unreasonable to state that those who create should have some path to reward. That I believe was the intention of the founding fathers of the United States Constitution.

Every time I mention my anti-DRM stance or mention the latest BitTorrent tracker, I’m howled down by some as being an extremist against copyright. Likewise for even arguing here briefly in favor of some copyright and patent protection, I’ll be labeled an extremist in the other direction. In a polarized world, there is scant room for moderation.

I’d note also that I understand why those calling for the abolition of copyright take their position: the corporate greed of copyright holders has driven an extreme reaction in itself (and not unjustly), but the harder path is to take a moderate line and not simply become a reactionary.

Mainstream Media

I don’t believe that mainstream media will completely die out. I believe that broadcast television as a distribution medium is dead because the television companies are the least prepared for the changes the internet is quickly delivering, and that secondly the notion of a one size fits all broadcast medium is an antique concept that logically will be replaced when an alternative of custom choice on demand or custom mixed content when the technology is cheaply and widely available. I believe that newspapers are in deep trouble, and that within 10-20 years 5-10% will be left in the Western world, but I don’t believe they’ll die out completely, even if the notion of media on print itself will cease to be in a digital age. There will always be a place for quality journalism, and the smart print publications are switching online now in a big way, looking at ways of keeping their business going well into the future when print newspapers themselves are dead. The New York Times will be available in 2030, but it will be a website only.

The old media is still today struggling to come to terms with this change, and love nothing more than to lash out at the new media creators that are offering their first serious competition. I attend conferences to be told by media hacks that bloggers are nothing but conflicted amateurs, incapable of creating quality media, and that the only way to define premium content is by how much is charged for it. It would be unfair of me to say that it is all in the space, and there are many fine and smart people in media who understand the changing face of journalism and their need to adopt to the times, but the extreme hates the bloggers, hates the YouTubers and Facebookers, and anyone else who dares share their opinion in a space that until 10 years ago was the elitist domain of the mainstream media.

The flip side are those who say that mainstream media is dead, that they will all cease to exist, and the quicker the better. That their number will thin is a given, but to suggest that they will die out is another matter. I touched on newspapers, but the companies behind television and radio aren’t completely stupid either. Hulu may be georetarded and DRM infested, but it is the first considerable step away from the broadcast television model into a new age of media on demand. The Disney’s of this word may have vested interests in television, but they are production companies first and foremost and they will follow the crowd where ever it goes. Comcast offers shows on demand today via the cable box.

Again I sympathize with the mainstream media is dead meme, and when I’m attacked by the fanatics on the other side it is far easier to switch towards the us and them model than try to argue some common ground and a moderate view, and quite honestly I wouldn’t be greatly displeased if a lot of those walls came tumbling down tomorrow, after all this false idea that journalism isn’t biased compared to a biased blogosphere does need to die, because it is a grand delusion by those in the media who believe they are beyond contempt. However, the moderate view sees a major restructure in the media landscape, but not a complete wipeout, based on trends and numbers we are already seeing.

Likewise, there is really not a lot of difference between the top of blogging and old media. Many blogs I’ve dealt with would have stricter editorial standards than large chunks of print. Newspapers themselves are embracing blogging in a big way, further blurring the lines. I’d argue that “blog” as a term in itself is probably growing towards redundancy; there are news sites and those which indulge in editorial and opinion. That they are owned by News Corp or a blog network should not be the first criteria upon which to judge either of them.

Conclusion

I feel that I’m probably barking up the wrong tree, because many reading this simply won’t understand that there is a common ground, a middle ground in many of these debates, like they are unable to see it in politics. I saw someone on FriendFeed the other day (apologies but I don’t recall who it was) say that he was unfollowing and possibly blocking McCain supporters because they were McCain supporters. There was some suggestion that some had been annoying him, but he’d decided none the less to block them all because he believed them to be stupid, and not worthy of a place in his feed. This extreme need to block others with differing opinions, to look to the negatives over the positives, to ignore the common ground and instead focus of the extremities would appear to be more and more the norm. Moderates are the dying breed, and we will be all worse off for the polarity we are left with.

In a polarized society, will moderate viewpoints die? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Muxtape is a cool little service that allows user to upload songs and share those songs in a traditional mix-tape format. The problem though legally lies with the fact that Muxtape hosts the music and as far as I know doesn’t pay any royalties on songs played on the site. CNet’s Geek Gastalt noted in April that the defense Muxtape was hiding behind was the DMCA provision of “‘hosting on behalf of users’ safe harbor” in a similar fashion to YouTube. However, unlike other services that rely on the search provisions (such as Seeqpod and MyPlaylist.biz), the problem with Muxtape is the hosting, and unlike YouTube who can mount some sort of argument that it doesn’t rely on pirated content alone, Muxtape was open season for any music uploads, and that’s always going to gain the attention of the record labels or their proxies such as a RIAA. Owen Thomas notes that the service also made it easy to users to download songs hosted on the site, a double copyright red flag if there ever was one.

I like this service, and it fills a need that once again isn’t being met by the heads in the sand music industry, but unless they pack their bags and move to Sweden, you’d have to think that they’d have to be completely screwed here, presuming that the RIAA has come a knocking.

(via Webware)

Muxtape jammed? is a post from: The Inquisitr