[videoblogging] Re: DMCA Missuse
Interesting point on "fair harbor". Thanks. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Good analysis Enric. > > The flipside, of course, is that the 'fair harbor' provision also permits > the existence of services like YouTube that are, without doubt, very > conducive to public speech. > > joly > > enric wrote: > >This is my opinion on this aspect of the DMCA: > > > > > > > --- > WWWhatsup NYC > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > --- >
Re: [videoblogging] Re: DMCA Missuse
Good analysis Enric. The flipside, of course, is that the 'fair harbor' provision also permits the existence of services like YouTube that are, without doubt, very conducive to public speech. joly enric wrote: >This is my opinion on this aspect of the DMCA: > --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
[videoblogging] Re: DMCA Missuse
This is my opinion on this aspect of the DMCA: The provision in section 512 allowing take-down notices for at least ten days and subpoena for revealing the uploaders identity without requiring a determination of copyright probably came from requests by the RIAA when the law was being formed. At the time the DMCA was passed in 1998 there were many people uploading/downloading music through Napster and other systems and so the argument appeared reasonable to quickly bring down and identify the uploader of the media without the time necessary to determine the complainers copyright status. Even so that turned out ineffective and the RIAA has not succeeded and stopping music "sharing". The problem with the law as it now stands is that it's tempting for those who would like to squash free, lawful speech. Rather than Michael Crook and anyone that my agree with him blogging in disagreement with Diehl. Michael Crook can fraudalantly invoke the DMCA section 512 provision to force a take-down of media used in Diehl blog, thus effecting Diehl fair use speech. And rather than Landmark Education putting out a video arguing their view of the Landmark Forum and Landmark Education, they can issue DMCA take-down notices and subpeona's to reveal uploaders identities to video hosting services. Even though Landmark Education has not been determined to have copyright over the video and may very well fail in that determination. So the law sides excessively on the damage copyright infringment can have to a potential copyright holder and against the ability to have free, fair use speech on the net. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm currently taking a class in cyber-ethics with a focus on issues > for library workers. We are currently working our way through > intellectual property issues and the topic of DCMA has come up. > > Some in the class are in favor of the DCMA based on a surface reading, > it seems "fair" to them. I will certainly pass on these links to them > and to the instructor to broaden the dialog. > > Thanks. > > Gena > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric" wrote: > > > > I've posted up several videos on my tech vlog site, > > http://techalley.cirne.com/ , on corporation and individual > > using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act section 512 to intimidate. > > Section 512 allows someone to send a notice to an ISP, video hoster, > > etc. that they are the copyright owner of a photo, video, etc. without > > proof of copyright ownership. The ISP, video hoster, etc. is required > > to have the media removed for at least ten days. The accuser may also > > subpeona the hoster to get the identity of the person who put up the > > media. > > > > There are two cases that the Electronic Frontier Foundation is > > defending against such DMCA intimidation: > > > >- Diehl v. Crook: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/diehl_v_crook/ > > Michael Crook fraudalently claimed he owned the image from his > > appearance on the Hannity and Colmes show, forcing Diehl to change > > ISPs to have the image up on his blog > > (http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/01/eff-crook-dmca-lawsuit/) > >- Landmark Forum subpeona and EFF move to quash > > The corporation, Landmark Forum, claimed copyright of the > > critical french news segment, "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous" > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_Au_Pays_Des_Nouveaux_Gourous) > > forcing it's removal from Google Video, The Internet Archive and > > YouTube. Then Landmark Education subpoenaed Google Video, The > > Internet Archive and YouTube (sample: > > http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/archive_subpeona_101906.pdf > > ) to reveal the identity of persons uploading the video. > > > > I interviewed Kurt Opsahl and Jason Schultz at the EFF on these cases > > and what bloggers, podcasters and videobloggers can do to defend > > themselves from using the DMCA to stop fair use of media. The videos > > are not very exciting, but if this interests you or you're in such a > > situation they can be worth watching: > > > > http://techalley.cirne.com/?s=DMCA&submit=Search > > >
[videoblogging] Re: DMCA Missuse
Cool! Let me know how that goes. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm currently taking a class in cyber-ethics with a focus on issues > for library workers. We are currently working our way through > intellectual property issues and the topic of DCMA has come up. > > Some in the class are in favor of the DCMA based on a surface reading, > it seems "fair" to them. I will certainly pass on these links to them > and to the instructor to broaden the dialog. > > Thanks. > > Gena > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric" wrote: > > > > I've posted up several videos on my tech vlog site, > > http://techalley.cirne.com/ , on corporation and individual > > using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act section 512 to intimidate. > > Section 512 allows someone to send a notice to an ISP, video hoster, > > etc. that they are the copyright owner of a photo, video, etc. without > > proof of copyright ownership. The ISP, video hoster, etc. is required > > to have the media removed for at least ten days. The accuser may also > > subpeona the hoster to get the identity of the person who put up the > > media. > > > > There are two cases that the Electronic Frontier Foundation is > > defending against such DMCA intimidation: > > > >- Diehl v. Crook: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/diehl_v_crook/ > > Michael Crook fraudalently claimed he owned the image from his > > appearance on the Hannity and Colmes show, forcing Diehl to change > > ISPs to have the image up on his blog > > (http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/01/eff-crook-dmca-lawsuit/) > >- Landmark Forum subpeona and EFF move to quash > > The corporation, Landmark Forum, claimed copyright of the > > critical french news segment, "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous" > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_Au_Pays_Des_Nouveaux_Gourous) > > forcing it's removal from Google Video, The Internet Archive and > > YouTube. Then Landmark Education subpoenaed Google Video, The > > Internet Archive and YouTube (sample: > > http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/archive_subpeona_101906.pdf > > ) to reveal the identity of persons uploading the video. > > > > I interviewed Kurt Opsahl and Jason Schultz at the EFF on these cases > > and what bloggers, podcasters and videobloggers can do to defend > > themselves from using the DMCA to stop fair use of media. The videos > > are not very exciting, but if this interests you or you're in such a > > situation they can be worth watching: > > > > http://techalley.cirne.com/?s=DMCA&submit=Search > > >
[videoblogging] Re: DMCA Missuse
Thanks ;) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Streeter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been following your series of videos on this Enric, and you're > doing a great job with it. Thanks for getting this information out there. > > Bill Streeter > LO-FI SAINT LOUIS > www.lofistl.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric" wrote: > > > > I've posted up several videos on my tech vlog site, > > http://techalley.cirne.com/ , on corporation and individual > > using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act section 512 to intimidate. > > Section 512 allows someone to send a notice to an ISP, video hoster, > > etc. that they are the copyright owner of a photo, video, etc. without > > proof of copyright ownership. The ISP, video hoster, etc. is required > > to have the media removed for at least ten days. The accuser may also > > subpeona the hoster to get the identity of the person who put up the > > media. > > > > There are two cases that the Electronic Frontier Foundation is > > defending against such DMCA intimidation: > > > >- Diehl v. Crook: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/diehl_v_crook/ > > Michael Crook fraudalently claimed he owned the image from his > > appearance on the Hannity and Colmes show, forcing Diehl to change > > ISPs to have the image up on his blog > > (http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/01/eff-crook-dmca-lawsuit/) > >- Landmark Forum subpeona and EFF move to quash > > The corporation, Landmark Forum, claimed copyright of the > > critical french news segment, "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous" > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_Au_Pays_Des_Nouveaux_Gourous) > > forcing it's removal from Google Video, The Internet Archive and > > YouTube. Then Landmark Education subpoenaed Google Video, The > > Internet Archive and YouTube (sample: > > http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/archive_subpeona_101906.pdf > > ) to reveal the identity of persons uploading the video. > > > > I interviewed Kurt Opsahl and Jason Schultz at the EFF on these cases > > and what bloggers, podcasters and videobloggers can do to defend > > themselves from using the DMCA to stop fair use of media. The videos > > are not very exciting, but if this interests you or you're in such a > > situation they can be worth watching: > > > > http://techalley.cirne.com/?s=DMCA&submit=Search > > >
[videoblogging] Re: DMCA Missuse
I'm currently taking a class in cyber-ethics with a focus on issues for library workers. We are currently working our way through intellectual property issues and the topic of DCMA has come up. Some in the class are in favor of the DCMA based on a surface reading, it seems "fair" to them. I will certainly pass on these links to them and to the instructor to broaden the dialog. Thanks. Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've posted up several videos on my tech vlog site, > http://techalley.cirne.com/ , on corporation and individual > using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act section 512 to intimidate. > Section 512 allows someone to send a notice to an ISP, video hoster, > etc. that they are the copyright owner of a photo, video, etc. without > proof of copyright ownership. The ISP, video hoster, etc. is required > to have the media removed for at least ten days. The accuser may also > subpeona the hoster to get the identity of the person who put up the > media. > > There are two cases that the Electronic Frontier Foundation is > defending against such DMCA intimidation: > >- Diehl v. Crook: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/diehl_v_crook/ > Michael Crook fraudalently claimed he owned the image from his > appearance on the Hannity and Colmes show, forcing Diehl to change > ISPs to have the image up on his blog > (http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/01/eff-crook-dmca-lawsuit/) >- Landmark Forum subpeona and EFF move to quash > The corporation, Landmark Forum, claimed copyright of the > critical french news segment, "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous" > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_Au_Pays_Des_Nouveaux_Gourous) > forcing it's removal from Google Video, The Internet Archive and > YouTube. Then Landmark Education subpoenaed Google Video, The > Internet Archive and YouTube (sample: > http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/archive_subpeona_101906.pdf > ) to reveal the identity of persons uploading the video. > > I interviewed Kurt Opsahl and Jason Schultz at the EFF on these cases > and what bloggers, podcasters and videobloggers can do to defend > themselves from using the DMCA to stop fair use of media. The videos > are not very exciting, but if this interests you or you're in such a > situation they can be worth watching: > > http://techalley.cirne.com/?s=DMCA&submit=Search >
[videoblogging] Re: DMCA Missuse
I've been following your series of videos on this Enric, and you're doing a great job with it. Thanks for getting this information out there. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've posted up several videos on my tech vlog site, > http://techalley.cirne.com/ , on corporation and individual > using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act section 512 to intimidate. > Section 512 allows someone to send a notice to an ISP, video hoster, > etc. that they are the copyright owner of a photo, video, etc. without > proof of copyright ownership. The ISP, video hoster, etc. is required > to have the media removed for at least ten days. The accuser may also > subpeona the hoster to get the identity of the person who put up the > media. > > There are two cases that the Electronic Frontier Foundation is > defending against such DMCA intimidation: > >- Diehl v. Crook: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/diehl_v_crook/ > Michael Crook fraudalently claimed he owned the image from his > appearance on the Hannity and Colmes show, forcing Diehl to change > ISPs to have the image up on his blog > (http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/01/eff-crook-dmca-lawsuit/) >- Landmark Forum subpeona and EFF move to quash > The corporation, Landmark Forum, claimed copyright of the > critical french news segment, "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous" > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_Au_Pays_Des_Nouveaux_Gourous) > forcing it's removal from Google Video, The Internet Archive and > YouTube. Then Landmark Education subpoenaed Google Video, The > Internet Archive and YouTube (sample: > http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/landmark/archive_subpeona_101906.pdf > ) to reveal the identity of persons uploading the video. > > I interviewed Kurt Opsahl and Jason Schultz at the EFF on these cases > and what bloggers, podcasters and videobloggers can do to defend > themselves from using the DMCA to stop fair use of media. The videos > are not very exciting, but if this interests you or you're in such a > situation they can be worth watching: > > http://techalley.cirne.com/?s=DMCA&submit=Search >
