| 5:54 am on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I can't say I agree with Twitter's response of publicly shaming the offended party, the one who filed the DMCA.
|Twitter says it will continue providing Chilling Effects with a copy of every DMCA takedown request, regardless of whether they come from a huge corporation (i.e. Activision combatting pirated copies of Call of Duty: Black Ops II) or individual users... |
Is it a tactic for making copyright holders suffer in silence while their intellectual property is stolen?
| 2:25 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I can't see where twitter is posting the name of the copyright holder complainant on twitter ( or maybe I miss-understood what you were getting at ? ) ..what is on Chilling effects ( vis a vis "details of "complainant" ) is what was always there with relation to individual "take downs" or DMCAs..
I doubt that there is a stronger defender of IP than myself..but twitter surely cant say "OK we'll require a DMCA from Getty ..to take down a tweet" ..but.. "We'll take down a tweet, on just, "his say so" from Leosghost..no DMCA required "..
Personally I think tweets that reuse others images etc without permission should result in a ban of the account holder ..after all tweeting or using someone else's images it isn't something that one can do "by mistake" or say "wasn't me, the cat walked on the keyboard and posted the image along with the tweet"..
| 2:39 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|I can't see where twitter is posting the name of the copyright holder complainant on twitter... |
|Twitter says it will continue providing Chilling Effects with a copy of every DMCA takedown request |
|what is on Chilling effects ( vis a vis "details of "complainant" ) is what was always there with relation to individual "take downs" or DMCAs.. |
DMCAs are not automatically posted on ChillingEffects.
[edited by: martinibuster at 2:45 pm (utc) on Nov 5, 2012]
| 2:45 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
But that "complainant info" is being posted on on Chilling effects..not on twitter..
|DMCAs are not automatically posted on ChillingEffects. |
true ..but IMO they should be..so as to prevent dishonest DMCAs being issued by those trying to claim IP which is not their own..or trying to use false DMCA claims to "gag" online journalists and news sources..
the publishing of DMCAs on Chilling Effects, might be the only thing stopping Disney from claiming all of Hans Christian Andersen's output as theirs via "hidden" DMCA's :)..a bit like "super-injunctions" in the UK
[edited by: Leosghost at 2:52 pm (utc) on Nov 5, 2012]
| 2:46 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Nobody said otherwise. See quote in both of my posts.
| 2:55 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Not looking for an argument :) ..merely that your first post was not clear as to where you were referring to as twitter doing the "shaming"..nor was your later post ( which I was replying to whilst you were editing it to make it clearer ) before you edited it..:)
| 2:58 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
It's pretty clear. Twitter is shaming the injured parties by submitting the DMCA notices to Chilling Effects. Can you hear me now? :P
| 3:25 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Yes :p ..As someone who issues the occasional DMCA ( although I have not had cause so far to do so to twitter ) twitter's policy would not worry me..( I issue DMCAs on behalf of my companies )..I would not be "shamed"..
But, I can see how it would intimidate some..
But how would they deal with abusive or false DMCAs? if they kept them "hidden" as in the "super-injunction" system used ( but I think now it may possibly have been repealed, UK members may correct me ? ) in the UK..
| 3:48 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Methods for dealing with abusive DMCA filers is built into the DMCA. There are financial disincentives built into the law.
Shaming claimants, as far as I can tell, has no purpose other than to discourage theft complaints.
| 4:01 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Methods for dealing with abusive DMCA filers is built into the DMCA. There are financial disincentives built into the law. |
So ..how would those financial disincentives work if the person or company ( or even Government or ruler ) that made the false DMCA claim was/is based outside the USA ? ..there is absolutely no way at that they ( disincentives ) can be enforced..
And if the object of a false DMCA claim is only to have the content removed temporarily..? a hidden DMCA ( falsely claimed/ applied for ) ..will have it's desired effect , even if later the claim is found or proven to be false..
Think of the "can spam" act..
since it was passed ..( proir to which we all got spammed ) we now all get spammed ( just as much, if not more than before "can spam" ) all the time by companies saying that we can "opt out" ..of things and lists that they know full well, we were never opted into..
I get spammed by USA companies* ( whom I've never heard of ) telling me "here is the quote" I supposedly requested..and who end with "if you think you have received this in error, or if you no longer wish to receive messages from us ..opt out ( of what I was never opted into ) by clicking this link..
Hidden DMCAs are about as big a disincentive to DMCA abuse, as "can spam" was, to spam..
* They, or their agents spam me in English via emails on my French language domains..whereas even the 419 ers from Lagos ( or Côte d'Ivoire ) know to spam me in French on French language site's email addys..:)
| 5:44 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|So ..how would those financial disincentives work |
Ask an attorney. ;)
The point is that that there are methods for appealing a wrongful takedown notice built into the system. Whether the entity can be pursued for damages is besides the point. The claim can still be challenged and the content restored.
| 5:51 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|So ..how would those financial disincentives work if the person or company ( or even Government or ruler ) that made the false DMCA claim was/is based outside the USA ? |
It was a rhetorical question ;)..I knew the answer, and supplied it, in the following sentence..
|there is absolutely no way at that they ( disincentives ) can be enforced.. |
possibly I should have added "if the DMCA was filed by someone or something, outside the USA..
But I thought that as the two sentences were joined, that you'd see I was referring to DMCAs filed from outside of the USA..
|Whether the entity can be pursued for damages is besides the point. The claim can still be challenged and the content restored. |
notice in my previous post I did specify that some false claims under DMCA could be made merely to have content or tweets temporarily removed..their possible subsequent re-instatement wouldn't matter as the desired result would have already been gained..
Kind of like the way "can spam" doesn't stop spammer..( and was watered down expressly so as not to stop them ) ..non public DMCAs being accepted for "take down" are a recipe for abuse..
| 6:28 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
| 6:40 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I don't get it.
Where's the shame?
If someone violates my copyright and I file a legitimate DMCA, why would I be "shamed" by the publication of that DMCA?
I would think the "shame" would fall on the person who violated my copyright.
But what do I know.
| 7:07 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|I don't get it. |
Where's the shame?
I guess it depends on your level of tolerance for privacy. I'm assuming you followed the links in the cited article?
|October 24, 2012 |
Ian Michael Freed
Swansea, IL, 62226, United States
This is an issue between the infringed party and Twitter. Filing the complaint causes it to be publicly published on ChillingEffects.org. While in the offline world legal actions are generally publicly available, one has to walk down to city hall and request the information. It's not generally available by Googling your name.
Your personal tolerance for privacy may be ok with having your name tied to a DMCA request that you filed. But not everyone shares that level of tolerance. Google used to do the same thing and last time I checked, they were doing it selectively (although I could be wrong, but that's what it looked like).
The effect of publicly posting the DMCA notice is that some who value their privacy will have reason to reconsider filing the action. Because everytime someone Google's the infringed party's name it will show up in the SERPs associated with their DMCA complaint, a business or personal issue that some may not want the whole world poring over when their name is Googled.
[edited by: martinibuster at 7:16 pm (utc) on Nov 5, 2012]
| 7:14 pm on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Your personal tolerance for privacy may be ok with having your name tied to a DMCA request that you filed. But not everyone shares that level of tolerance. |
Yeah, I fo;;owed the links and saw that.
Pretty much anyone can find out who I made political contributions to and all sorts of other info about me on the web.
I don't see this as being much different.
But yeah, I can see where that might bother others.
I just wouldn't called it shaming them, wanting privacy is one thing, shaming is another.
| 4:02 pm on Nov 9, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Google auto-publishes DCMAs on Chilling Effects. I didn't realize the first time I issued one that it would put up my first and last name, which I didn't care to have published.
So I wrote Chilling Effects in distress, and they were very nice. They changed it to my site name, and said in the future, you just need to fill in the "company" field (I'm a sole proprietor, so I had left it blank) with MyDomainName or something, and THAT is what would show on the form. So now all my Chilling Effects DCMAs have just my domain name.
The problem is, they don't explain this to you clearly up front. It doesn't sound like Twitter is making it anymore transparent, either. A DCMA is legal, so it makes sense you have to provide your name confidentially in case the people you've accused want to sue you. But it is absolutely NOT necessary for your name to be published before the entire world.
So where I blame Google and Twitter is in not making this more transparent. It DOES feel like they want individuals to be discouraged from filing... or else it never occurred to them an individual would want to protect copyright? Surely they're not that far out of touch with reality.