> The content owners have clearly demonstrated us that they are not responsible enough to use such power over the Internet.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...
OK, let's agree that some of the actions taken by the legal departments at Big Media companies have been unjustified and that at least in the US the legal system does let them get away with too much.
On the other hand, what proportion of the people they go after following a hit by their automated scanning tools do you think actually were ripping them off in flagrant breach of copyright? 50%? 80%? 95%? And what proportion of content that they take down via automated notices really was infringing? Something even greater?
Sure, you can say "We don't know, statistics are made up on the spot", just as you can say "You can't prove that this person was actually controlling the computer that was confirmed to be distributing infringing copies of 300 different works over the course of an entire month at this IP address that is uniquely assigned to and paid for by them where the only wireless router on the network is secured like Fort Knox and the only computer physically present on the network is their personal machine". And sometimes, maybe there will even be some justification in the argument that creates doubt.
But this is mostly just lawyering of the worst kind. We all know that most of these people really are ripping off the illegal content just as they are accused of doing, and trying to weasel out of the consequences when they get caught. No-one really believes that these people are honestly sampling the material for free with the intention of immediately buying a legal copy of everything they like. No-one really believes that not a single illegal download represents a lost sale that would otherwise have been made.
Now, this is not to say that, from a practical point of view, it is in the interests of Big Media to stop this copying. The economics of copyright and media distribution is a fascinating subject, and one where we don't have all the answers and understand all the interacting effects yet. And a lot of the general public simply don't understand copyright anyway, nor realise that they are doing anything illegal, so there is an education vs. legislation question here too.
It is also not to say that (proposed) laws like SOPA are proportionate and fair.
But the law does grant exclusive rights to media content, which a significant proportion of the general public apparently feel free to trample on at will, certainly with a possibility that they are costing those media rightsholders a substantial amount of money. If we don't like this situation, we should restructure or remove the underlying copyright in law, not lead an uphill charge against heavy-handed enforcement of rights that have not been well protected by the more gentle approach taken so far.
We all know that most of these people really are ripping off the illegal content just as they are accused of doing, and trying to weasel out of the consequences when they get caught.
And this is precisely the way our legal system is designed to work. Underlying it is the idea that it's better for 100 people to go unpunished, then to have used the state's monopoly on force to injure one innocent person. It's through this philosophy that we can all sleep at night, without guilt from the blood of innocents on our hands.
Of course, this is all a tangent, if the bit about this being a contractual arrangement between Google and UMG.
But if that's true, then UMG's argument that the court doesn't have authority under DMCA to impose an injunction is a red herring. If this is a straight matter of consumer and contract law between Google and UMG, and Google's users, then the judge may very well be able to intervene (depending on the details of those relationships).
> And this is precisely the way our legal system is designed to work. Underlying it is the idea that it's better for 100 people to go unpunished, then to have used the state's monopoly on force to injure one innocent person.
It's not really that simple, though, is it? Different kinds of law require a different burden of proof to be met before the legal system will punish or compensate.
In criminal cases, the standard in many places is "beyond reasonable doubt" or something roughly equivalent. This echoes the sentiment you described.
However, in civil cases, where we are talking about damages being assessed if and only if the case is lost, the burden is typically much lower, often something resembling "on the balance of probabilities".
And on the balance of probabilities, anyone trying to weasel their way out of being punished for infringing copyright who has no case stronger than the form arguments I mentioned before is guilty as sin.
Maybe I'm reading too much into your previous statement. But what I got out of it was the idea that because in aggregate so much of the activity is infringing, that it would make moral sense to shut down everything. I don't think it's correct to use the standards of proof necessary in individual cases to draw conclusions about entire classes of people.
(and let me apologize in advance if I was indeed finding meanings that you hadn't intended)
I understand that, but there seems to be some doubt about whether they legally compelled YouTube to take it down or simply asked nicely via some pre-arranged deal with Google. If it's the latter, then perhaps any secondary criticism should be directed at Google for entering into such an agreement rather than at a legal system that wasn't used here anyway.
I think my general point is that while SOPA is obviously a crazy idea and Big Media obviously do go too far at times, we should be careful to choose the focus of our criticism correctly.
Although I agree with your statements concerning matters of which you describe, such as people downloading music illegally, this is not what the discussion is about.
The reason they clearly demonstrate they are not responsible enough to have such power over the internet is because this is a case of a content creator removing content they do not own. It does not matter the reasoning behind it, whether it be DMCA or private agreement with Google.
Going after people for illegal downloading their property is one thing, automatically removing content they don't like is another.
Plus, they have the lousy reasoning behind the whole thing anyway, "we're protected by the DMCA even though we admit this has nothing to do with the DMCA".
Which, I'm uncomfortable with the whole notion of content creators being involved in this in the first place. If the actions being taken by people are "illegal" then the private company should be reporting it to the proper authorities who have the, well, authority to do something about it. But then again, lately the people with authority have shown they are just as incompetent in handling these matters as well.
Oh, I totally agree that the law needs to change. Copyright has been distorted from its original purpose, and until it's restored to a more reasonable balance it will never command popular respect.
However, I can't help wondering where all these well-funded anti-SOPA lobbyists are when it comes to proposing changing the underlying system, rather than the half-baked non-solution of campaigning to prevent current legal rights from being effectively enforced. Something is backwards in this whole debate.
SOPA is so far out there that companies that wouldn't normally be worrying about lobbying/campaigning are forced to, because to just wait for SOPA to pass would be suicide.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...
OK, let's agree that some of the actions taken by the legal departments at Big Media companies have been unjustified and that at least in the US the legal system does let them get away with too much.
On the other hand, what proportion of the people they go after following a hit by their automated scanning tools do you think actually were ripping them off in flagrant breach of copyright? 50%? 80%? 95%? And what proportion of content that they take down via automated notices really was infringing? Something even greater?
Sure, you can say "We don't know, statistics are made up on the spot", just as you can say "You can't prove that this person was actually controlling the computer that was confirmed to be distributing infringing copies of 300 different works over the course of an entire month at this IP address that is uniquely assigned to and paid for by them where the only wireless router on the network is secured like Fort Knox and the only computer physically present on the network is their personal machine". And sometimes, maybe there will even be some justification in the argument that creates doubt.
But this is mostly just lawyering of the worst kind. We all know that most of these people really are ripping off the illegal content just as they are accused of doing, and trying to weasel out of the consequences when they get caught. No-one really believes that these people are honestly sampling the material for free with the intention of immediately buying a legal copy of everything they like. No-one really believes that not a single illegal download represents a lost sale that would otherwise have been made.
Now, this is not to say that, from a practical point of view, it is in the interests of Big Media to stop this copying. The economics of copyright and media distribution is a fascinating subject, and one where we don't have all the answers and understand all the interacting effects yet. And a lot of the general public simply don't understand copyright anyway, nor realise that they are doing anything illegal, so there is an education vs. legislation question here too.
It is also not to say that (proposed) laws like SOPA are proportionate and fair.
But the law does grant exclusive rights to media content, which a significant proportion of the general public apparently feel free to trample on at will, certainly with a possibility that they are costing those media rightsholders a substantial amount of money. If we don't like this situation, we should restructure or remove the underlying copyright in law, not lead an uphill charge against heavy-handed enforcement of rights that have not been well protected by the more gentle approach taken so far.