
The Internet Archive Pushes Back on “Notice and Staydown” - ohjeez
http://blog.archive.org/2017/02/23/the-internet-archive-pushes-back-on-notice-and-staydown-in-recent-comments-to-the-copyright-office/
======
0xcde4c3db
> We think the 1998 statute struck the right balance and is generally working
> well, a view shared by nearly all Internet platforms and users.

This might be peripheral to the main point, but I have a hard time believing
this. Spurious takedowns have inspired multiple waves of invective on YouTube
alone. It's a pretty common opinion (at least in my circles) that the current
law unduly encourages copyright owners and their representatives to send vast
numbers of notifications with no regard to their accuracy. Furthermore, the
lopsided requirements of notification vs. counter-notification ("reasonably
sufficient" contact information vs. name, address, and phone number) have been
abused in order to dox people [1].

[1] [https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-group-reveals-
personal-...](https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-group-reveals-personal-
details-of-counter-notice-senders-160730/)

~~~
cjensen
YouTube takedown waves are not examples of the DMCA. YouTube gives rights-
holders far more power than the DMCA alone would give.

Which is a shame. If they used the DMCA and you had a video taken down for a
spurious reason, you could claim fair-use or no-infringement, and the video
could be restored. Then the rights holder would have to sue you personally to
get it taken down, and you could potentially fight it.

~~~
bitJericho
Reminds me of this apt explanation of the situation:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTAVsMqa-U](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTAVsMqa-U)

------
lygaret
> A mandatory filter run on the TV News Archive might catch a famous song used
> in a political ad or at a campaign rally, and determine that such material
> must be removed.

Imagine when that becomes a strategy. If always have copyrighted songs playing
in the background of speeches you wish future control over, you can just sue
to get those speeches removed over copyright in the background, and the
removal propagated to filters everywhere.

I like my instant revisionist propaganda with The Beatles playing in the
background.

~~~
pdkl95
Jim Sterling already uses a variation of this strategy, which he calls the
"Copyright Deadlock"[1]. He discovered it is possible to defeat ContentID-
based forced monetization of his videos by including _multiple_ songs/footage
from different businesses.

[1] (warning: Jim Sterling uses strong language)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK8i6aMG9VM)

~~~
lygaret
That's gross and amazing, in equal proportion. Thanks!

------
DashRattlesnake
Blog seems down, here's a Google cache link (click the text-only link to avoid
waiting for the images to fail to load):

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Hkhxzsz...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Hkhxzsznp74J:blog.archive.org/2017/02/23/the-
internet-archive-pushes-back-on-notice-and-staydown-in-recent-comments-to-the-
copyright-office/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

------
Asooka
Or maybe The Internet Archive could _obey the law_. Google are similarly
guilty of this - their empire is built on intellectual property, yet they only
pay distant lip service to others' intellectual property. It would be trivial
to implement a system where every rightsholder can register their copyrights
and trademarks and subsequently forbid the uploading of content that infringes
those. It would be trivial to scan trusted publications for new movie releases
and forbid uploading content with the names and pictures they contain unless
it's done from the studio's trusted account. But no - today's robber barons
Google & Facebook are content to let unprecedented thievery run rampant on
their services and gorge themselves on profits, while the rightsholders and
content creators lose billions of profit every year. The Internet is the worst
thing to have happened to our shared culture.

