tagged w/ infringement
-
SEVENTH STORY IN THE SERIES “Examiner Extremists & Facebook Foibles”
Goodness, but the denizens of Operation Burn Notice were angry about having their little play pen hosed out. But, after the 5th attempt at filing a Copyright and DMCA Infringement report (and pointedly reminding Facebook that they lose whatever protection they receive under the “Safe Harbor” protection of Copyright and DMCA law once they’re notified of a legitimate copyright complaint), they finally pulled it down.
http://www.turningovertherocks.com/2011/12/22/trying-to-arouse-the-sleeping-giant-that-is-facebook/SEVENTH STORY IN THE SERIES “Examiner Extremists & Facebook Foibles”... more
-
-
Both scholars concluded that the proposed law could not pass muster under the U.S. Constitution. So you’d think that the new version of SOPA circulated this week would have resolved those concerns. You’d think wrong. While the revised SOPA briefly mentions the First Amendment, the substantive text makes clear that's just lip service. Here’s a selection of fundamental flaws that remain in both SOPA and PIPA: http://www.freeturbine.com/index.php/news/recent-politic/item/the-internet-blacklist-vs-the-constitutionBoth scholars concluded that the proposed law could not pass muster under the U.S.... more
-
-
worrg
-
added this
-
1 month ago
- |
-
PLEASE WATCH THE ENTIRETY OF THIS VIDEO AS IT CONTAINS CRITICAL INFORMATION YOU NEED TO KNOW to prevent websites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook etc. from being shut down as they operate today! The fate of video game playthroughs, music videos, karaoke, pictures, and censorship in general is at stake! Check out the link to see more information. Share with everyone and their moms! Contact your Congressman, Senator, etc.PLEASE WATCH THE ENTIRETY OF THIS VIDEO AS IT CONTAINS CRITICAL INFORMATION YOU NEED... more
-
-
It didn’t make much news on this side of the pond, but one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the digital era was passed in the United Kingdom just prior to the recent national election. It is called the Digital Economy Act, pushed by a powerful coalition of media interests. It is a sweeping piece of legislation. Notably, its odious provisions are headed for America and the world.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently noted:
The Digital Economy Bill has been the subject of heavy entertainment industry lobbying and widespread concern amongst U.K. citizens and telecommunications companies because it included provisions that would allow the U.K. government to censor websites considered “likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright,” and disconnect the Internet connection of any household in the U.K. with an IP address alleged to have engaged in copyright infringement.
That means YOU, Wikileaks.
Other powers granted by the new law include:
* Although proof is required before disconnection, the evidence does not have to relate to you: you can be punished for the actions of a friend or even a neighbour who has used your Internet connection.
* Rights holders could have the power to demand that sites they believe to contravene copyright law be blocked by ISPs.Right now, we don’t know what the govrnment will propose, as they have yet to draft their new proposal.
* As it is not the perpetrator that is punished, as you might expect, but the owner of the connection, and others using it, cafés and bars may have to stop providing wifi.
You could go to your local coffeeshop tea room and use their WiFi. Some other user at that shop is using BitTorrent or some other P2P software to download music or a movie. Under the DEA, that WiFi network can be disconnected from the internet. Permanently. More ominously, if a right holder, such as News Corp. or Halliburton believes that certain websites are likely to be used to publish copywritten materials, that website can be blocked from the internet. Whoa. Not an actual incident of copyright infringement, but the likeliness of it happening allows the holder of that copyright to request that website’s ISP block it.
For more analysis of the law and its implications, read this.
Similar provisions included in the DEA are being negotiated, in secret, by a consortium of nations in a new trade agreement called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The United States is part of the negotiations which recently concluded their eighth round in New Zealand. Thanks to pressure from civil society and privacy activists, the first public draft of the new law is available.The draft provisions look remarkably like the DEA:
In civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of [copyright or related rights and trademarks] [intellectual property rights], each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority [subject to any statutory limitations under its domestic law] to issue [against the infringer an injunction aimed at prohibiting the continuation of the] [an order to a party to desist from an] infringement, including an order to prevent infringing goods from entering into the channels of commerce [and to prevent their exportation].
[2. The Parties [may] shall also ensure that right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against [infringing] intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right.8]9
What this legalese means is every party to the trade agreement must adopt policies that give “judicial authorities” the authority to not only go after the person who infringes on the copyright at the behest of the right holder, but also against “intermediaries.” That could mean ISPs. That could mean your unsecured WiFi network. That could mean sites that act as publishing platforms for the general public.
And then there is this:
[X. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority, at the request of the applicant, to issue an interlocutory injunction intended to prevent any imminent infringement of an intellectual property right [copyright or related rights or trademark]. An interlocutory injunction may also be issued, under the same conditions, against an [infringing] intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right.Each Party shall also provide that provisional measures may be issued, even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits, to preserve relevant evidence in respect of the alleged infringement. Such measures may include inter alia the detailed description, the taking of samples or the physical seizure of documents or of the infringing goods.]
1. Each Party shall [provide][ensure] that its judicial authorities [shall ]act [expeditiously][ on requests] forprovisional measures inaudita altera parte, and shall endeavor to make a decision[ on such requests] without undue delay, except in exceptional cases.
Emphasis mine. Now, it seems reasonable to me that courts should have the power to issue injunctions to prevent imminent infringement by a copyright abuser. But to also grant the power to disconnect intermediaries, seize evidence inter alia of said intermediaries, and to do it all ex parte is beyond odious. This is all being done in the name of ending online software and content piracy, which is certainly a reasonable goal. This response, however, is draconian. Since it is expensive to go after each and every person who downloads a music file for free, the media conglomerates must slowdown or shutdown any network where it is or might possibly take place. This will have the effect of forcing ISPs to police what their users are doing and that is where the Internet experience start to feel like watching cable: lots of stuff on but nothing worth seeing.
The EFF strongly opposes ACTA much as it opposed the awful Digital Economy Act in Britian. Liberal Democrat leader, now Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg promised to repeal it if elected. However, the new Conservative minister responsible for the law has made it clear it is here to stay.
You can take action against ACTA by first fighting for sunlight.
Oh…almost forgot:
Because ACTA is being negotiated as anExecutive Agreement, it will not be subject to the Congressional oversight mechanisms that have applied to recent bilateral free trade agreements, even though it appears likely to have a far greater impact on the global knowledge economy than any of those.It didn’t make much news on this side of the pond, but one of the most... more
-
-
The lawyers up in Redmond seem to have been woken from their slumber with the sudden realization that -- oh look! -- Google's Android OS infringes on Microsoft's boatload of software patents. How specifically it does so is not identified, but Microsoft believes that elements from both the user interface and the underlying operating system are in violation of its rights. This is very much in keeping with the Windows maker's crusade to assert patent claims over Linux, which in the past has garnished it with cross-licensing deals with Amazon and Xandros, as well as a settlement from TomTom. Lawsuits are not yet being discussed here, but lest you think this is a small-time disturbance, HTC has already decided to shorten its list of troubles by ponying up for a license from Microsoft for "running the Android mobile platform." Yes, that does sound ludicrous, but it's now an unfortunate fact that a major Android phone manufacturer is having to pay Microsoft royalties to use Google's operating system.The lawyers up in Redmond seem to have been woken from their slumber with the sudden... more
-
-
Youtube – now that’s a name very familiar to everybody. It’s one of the most popular video sharing websites in the world. Did you ever thought about some possible copyright violations or piracy happening on this site? How is Youtube different from Napster?
What are some copyright’s etiquette rules they should practice to keep them out of trouble?Youtube – now that’s a name very familiar to everybody. It’s one of... more
-
-
Yesterday one of my favorite Internet video-centric blogs, NewTeeVee, alerted me to the fact that my video upload site of choice, Vimeo, is being sued by Capitol Records for copyright infringement over one of its most popular user memes, the "lip dub", a video of one or more persons lip synching to a (usually well-known) copyrighted song track.
From NewTeeVee:
The complaint states that Vimeo “induces and encourages its users to upload…audiovisual works,” which it then disseminates virally throughout the Internet. According to Capitol Records, the company’s staff actively participates in “making, selecting, commenting on, and at times choosing to delete” audiovisual works, including those featuring its own copyrighted recordings.
Now, here's the thing. It would be easy to dismiss Capitol Records as the bad guys who don't have senses of humor and just want to make trouble for creative folks. And I've actually made one of these lip dubs during work hours while drinking alcohol at at previous place of employment, so I'm obviously a fan of the process (and a shameless ham, which is neither here nor there, but let's be honest, I don't completely suck at lip dubs).
But I also completely understand why Vimeo's being sued, and I'm not sure they've got a real strong counter argument for Capitol Records. The day a bunch of co-workers and I made the lip dub I referenced above, we sort of put it together on the fly on a Friday afternoon and showed off the final product at an all-hands meeting afterward. And even though everybody laughed and clapped, my boss was a little freaked because it was obviously shot in the company studio and we obviously didn't have permission from INXS to use their song. And it kind of became this dramatic issue where he really didn't want our lip dub video getting posted anywhere associated with the company, even though we'd planned to use it as a fun promotional piece and get as many people to watch as possible (I hadn't run any of it by him beforehand). And of course I guffawed at his paranoia and considered him humorless and argued that he was just trying to keep the creative folks from having fun, but deep down I knew he was right. So I posted the video to my personal account on Vimeo and agreed to accept any repercussions individually. And there weren't any, and I never really thought about it again.
Except that now there are repercussions, at least for Vimeo. And I'm not quite sure what to think about being part of a pretty big group of people who may not fall under the "parody" defense. So....what's your opinion?Yesterday one of my favorite Internet video-centric blogs, NewTeeVee, alerted me to... more
-
-
Social network giant Facebook entered litigation with German site Studivz on Friday for closely copying its design, just in time for Facebook to launch its totally redesigned interface on Monday.
German site StudiVZ took more than a few design cues from Facebook. According to reports, early versions of the site even featured filenames such as fbook.css and poke.php, as the two companies were reportedly "in talks."
StudiVZ's founder Ehssan Dariani has frequently been quoted in his acknowledgment of the two sites' similarity: "We may have oriented ourselves along the lines of the Facebook layout, but it was also clear that we would strongly distinguish ourselves by other things, that we wanted to be original."
On Friday, Facebook sued StudiVZ for copyright infringement in a California federal court. StudiVZ denied these allegations and asked for a declaratory judgement at the district court level in Stuttgart, Germany.
Facebook claims that, "As with any counterfeit product, Studivz's uncontrolled quality standards for service, features and privacy negatively impact the genuine article."
Any negative impact felt from StudiVZ's alleged infringement, however, will be significantly decreased after a sweeping update to Facebook's interface.
Rolled out today, the new Facebook has reduced its emphasis on personal profiles and made the news feed the primary fixture. When users log into new.facebook.com, they are taken to a redesigned homepage centered around the News Feed and friends' status updates. A navigation bar along the top gives access to profile data, friends list, applications, and the user's inbox.Social network giant Facebook entered litigation with German site Studivz on Friday... more
-
-
kushan
-
added this
-
3 years ago
- |
-
Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, to Viacom, which is suing Google for allowing clips of its copyright videos to appear on YouTube, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.
Viacom filed suit against Google in March 2007, seeking more than $1 billion in damages for allowing users to upload clips of Viacom's copyright material. Google argues that the law provides a safe harbor for online services so long as they comply with copyright takedown requests.
Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling (.pdf) described that argument as "speculative" and ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four tera-byte hard drives.
The judge also turned Google's own defense of its data retention policies -- that IP addresses of computers aren't personally revealing in and of themselves, against it to justify the log dump.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has already reacted, calling the order a violation of the Video Privacy Protection act that "threatens to expose deeply private information."
The order also requires Google to turn over copies of all videos that it has taken down for any reason.
Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema.
Those requests were denied in whole, except that Google will have to turn over data about how often each private video has been watched and by how many persons. Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users,... more
-
