Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Sadanana [O_O]
1046 Followers
Naveed Javaid
8063 Followers
draganescu pavlovich
1158 Followers
SleepingZombie
332 Followers
Caroline Thompson
1646 Followers
Carly Wilson
3025 Followers
Mark Krakof
887 Followers
baathorAug 13, 2010
If I were the filmmaker, I would sue GVU.
r0g3rAug 13, 2010
I think this demonstrates the problem with allowing companies to order takedowns.
captininsanityAug 13, 2010
If this type of thing were successful someone could order the takedown of pretty much the entirety of sites like newgrounds.com (most of their stuff is legit CC licensed).
cl1mh4224rdAug 13, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
iceman21Aug 13, 2010
No it just shouldn't happen.
cl1mh4224rdAug 14, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
iceman21Aug 14, 2010
The appropiate court of law?
inactiveuserAug 13, 2010
People used to go to court and PROVE the offending items were in fact theirs. In corporate utopia land we just do as we please...
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
''In corporate utopia land we just do as we please.''
No, THEY get to do as THEY please.
travelsonicAug 13, 2010
f**k the GVU!
sepiidAug 13, 2010
f**k the GUV
kangarouxAug 15, 2010
f**k the RIAA
rossisdeadAug 13, 2010
It's very accurate, all gay men wear makeup and womens clothing.
deweyhewsonAug 13, 2010
The American system - as sold out to business and corporations as it is - just cannot grasp the concept that a work can be entirely free, both in cost and in restrictions.
So the system errs on the side of profit. A system run by corporate interests will always be that way.
factorof13Aug 13, 2010
I agree with you, but this happened in Germany.
mweatherAug 13, 2010
Who do you think set up the German system after National Socialism?
mweatherAug 13, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_European_Economic_Co-operation
hipmanAug 13, 2010
I love when peopel don't read articles.
donteAug 13, 2010
It wouldn't say its technology failed... the DMCA failed by not requiring you to prove that you are the copyright owner before taking down any suspected content. But I suppose that's what the public gets for not having all that money to throw at the politicians who pass the damn laws.
mendedslinkyAug 13, 2010
This happened in Germany so the DMCA doesn't apply here.
btcc222Aug 13, 2010
The target of a DMCA notice can request proof of copyright ownership/that the notice was filled on behalf of the owners before pulling content down.
inactiveuserAug 13, 2010
Germany followed the DCMA as part of negotiations with the USA on "free trade".
The US tried it on Australia and we told them to go and blow a poodle.
s4g4nAug 13, 2010
The RIAA... err I mean GVU
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
They are tracking how much porn you watch! WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!
shingoexAug 13, 2010
Time for an ironic lawsuit.
bennisonAug 13, 2010
Looking forward to it. I need more irony in my diet.
iceman21Aug 13, 2010
When will it end, these companies are beyond description of my anger and contempt for them, people who parade around sueing and posting *copyright claims* on videos and music need to just f**king die.
kaquinAug 13, 2010
It's only four videos. On youtube thousands of videos are wrongfully taken down each day, why doesn't anyone addresses that?
inactiveuserAug 13, 2010
Google is now officially evil...
zurahnAug 14, 2010
It's not Google's fault, it's the result of the DMCA and its notice-and-takedown policy. Google won its recent case against Viacom specifically because it responded to DMCA filings by taking down the videos. It's a ridiculous system, but not following it is illegal.
thahmzAug 13, 2010
/unplug internet
What the f**k will you do now, huh?!
modigaAug 13, 2010
Some time ago, YouTube removed the official "Meet The Scout" Team Fortress 2 video uploaded by Valve themselves, after Viacom filed a takedown notice. It almost seems like plagiarism, claiming something that's not yours as yours. Although I suppose it's just a f**k up, rather than intentional.
theghoulAug 13, 2010
FTA:
"Whatever the reason, Mario Sixtus is not happy. Describing the wrongful takedowns as a massacre, Sixtus said the actions of GVU and their hired “mercenaries” amounted to “nothing less than digital vandalism”. He is seeking assurances that these errors won’t happen again."
seeking assurances? He should be seeking lawsuits. Sometimes you have to fight fire with controlled burns.
dalittleAug 13, 2010
Mario should be demanding financial compensation.
johnfluxAug 13, 2010
Okay, I'm going to be the one to say:
The idea behind the DMCA isn't that bad.
I know, I know.. But the idea is:
1) Anyone can issue a DMCA takedown against anything.
2) The owner can now reverse the DMCA takedown.
3) It's now up to the parties in 1 & 2 to battle it out in court. If the person in 1. was not the copyright owner, then the person in 2. can win.
If something is incorrectly taken down, the owner can simply sue them. This is the way that it is supposed to work.
Perhaps youtube could help the process by making it easier to issue the reverse DMCA takedown by giving instructions on how to do it if your video has been flagged.
tsk05Aug 13, 2010
I know exactly how DMCA works (you described it ok, except your first step is not quite right, it's not anyone and anything), and its whole idea is guilty until proven innocent. Read the first two steps again, would you not agree?
johnfluxAug 14, 2010
It is anyone and anything because the person you issue the DMCA takedown to does not have to verify that you own the copyright.
You can, practically but not legally, send a DMCA takedown to youtube for any video. And they have to take it down, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
And it doesn't assume guiltyness because they owner of the video can simply reverse it, and youtube have to put it back up again.
tsk05Aug 14, 2010
No, it's not anyone and anything. Here is the full text,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c105:1:./temp/~c105YtnUtF:e57148:
"To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:"
"A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."
"A statement under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
johnfluxAug 14, 2010
TSK05, I'm trying to show the difference between practically and legally.
You can ILLEGALLY ask youtube to remove any video that you don't own. And youtube does not have to verify that you do own it. In fact it's strongly against youtube's interest to verify it because if they ever make a mistake, they can be held legally responsible.
So in practical terms, anyone can (illegally) file a DMCA takedown against anything.
It would then be up to the real copyright owner to file a reverse DMCA takedown to get youtube to put it back up, and then sue the original person.
sacrabosAug 13, 2010
This would work better if all takedowns were done under penalty of perjury with statutory damages to party #2 if they actually own the copyrights claimed by party #1
Right now, they can file lots of takedowns, and then claim "software error" and apologize with little to no risk.
johnfluxAug 14, 2010
Agreed.
inactiveuserAug 13, 2010
Why do we have to sue? Joe the cleaner who makes student videos while learning cinematography gets his resume trashed and he is supposed to sue?
Right...
johnfluxAug 14, 2010
Joe simply sends the reverse DMCA and the video is put back up. You're not forced to do step 3. So the videos are down for a day or so max.
sacrabosAug 14, 2010
Yeah, but there's a lot of content that's taken down a day or two for no valid reason due to "mistakes". There's supposed to be a reasonable expectation that the copyright own has really verified they own the copyright before they issue the DCMA notice. They aren't always doing the due diligence they should be doing. Hence the only way to stop abusive, excessive, and negligent use of DCMA takedown notices is to enable the real copyright holders to sue for statutory damages for false claims. That or better enforce the "perjury" aspect of filing a takedown notice.
localzukAug 13, 2010
You stole my car. See that car in your drive? Its mine. So, I'm gonna send a recovery truck around to collect it.
Disagree? You can sue me, and you'd have to prove that it was your car.
See why the DMCA system makes no legal sense?
johnfluxAug 14, 2010
No, you didn't read what I said.
It's more:
Them: See that car in the drive? Its mine. So I'm going to send a recovery truck around to collect it.
You: Hey recovery truck, actually that is mine - don't collect it.
Now the recovery truck has to back off.
sacrabosAug 14, 2010
The problem is that your car is already on the recovery truck and headed for an impound lot. You have to go there and tell them it's really your car.
greevarAug 13, 2010
The DMCA and the Copyright Act both need to be removed. Copyright was never about protecting artists when it was passed and it never will be. The Copyright Act is a censorship and monopoly law that restricts, not promotes, the progress of the arts and science. The first copyright laws in human history were for combating the printing press and it's ability to publish books by anyone, even those that write books that spread seditious messages. Then, they gave the power of publishing to Stationers that grew wealthy on this new control system. When the law was about to be repealed by the English Parliament, the Stationers convinced them that it was needed to allow authors to earn a living, knowing full well that it was for themselves. Thus came the Statute of Anne, which is what the first US copyright act was based on. Three hundred years later, the law has become even more restrictive than ever.
Source: http://questioncopyright.org/promise
johnfluxAug 14, 2010
You're arguing against the current form of copyright, not DMCA.
greevarAug 14, 2010
No, I'm arguing against both. Without copyright, there can't be any DMCA.
dalittleAug 13, 2010
How much has the freelance journalist and independent filmmaker been paid in damages by the anti-piracy group?
urmyhartbstoprAug 13, 2010
" GVU claims that its technology failed."
No, GVU failed as a company.
skillelAug 14, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
tuneraiderAug 14, 2010
1 – Culture Always Builds On The Past
2 – The Past Always Tries To Control The Future
3 – Our Future Is Becoming Less Free
4 – To Build Free Societies You Must Limit The Control Of The Past
http://films.onf.ca/rip-a-remix-manifesto/ Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tuneraiderAug 14, 2010
btw, this manifesto was written by Lawrence Lessig, the founder of the Creative Commons license.
paradigm24Aug 14, 2010
As of now, the Opsec Security GmbH has signed a declaration to cease and desist to both authors.
This means that if they would take down another video of either of them, they would have to pay quite a large sum.
Both Opsec Security and the GVU state that the take down of the videos was purely a fault of Opsec Security,
and that the GVU had nothing to do with these individually.
Mario Sixtus suspects that Opsec Security is a scapegoat for GVU, and he would love to try to sue the GVU,
but the problem is that this would be legally and financially a very risky undertaking, because to win before court,
they would have to prove that the GVU instructed Opsec to take down the videos. For this, one would have to prove the contractual relation between both companies, which is not really possible, since the contracts are confidential.
On the positive side, Opsec Security admitted the fault and will probably be more carefull in the future. They admitted also that such a take-down-notice is a copyright infringement after German Copyright law.
Sources: www.lawblog.de(Site of the German lawyer of both authors), www,sixxtus.cc(Site of one of the authors