Why do you say "at what point do WE admit that it just isn't working"?  Paul, you make a living off of this controversy.  If it wasn't for the DMCA You would be out of a job...

Lol....Paul's the Sean hannity of the war on terror.

What is the point of your comment? That Paul is a journalist? What the fuck ... 

something tells me that you make your living claiming "intellectual  property" on things that you creatively had absolutely nothing to do with.

Hey Paul it would be rather interesting if did a piece on how big tech companies hate copyright protection but love patent protection. Planet money on NPR did a podcast that examined how these tech companies are using their patents to sue sue sue. And some suggest this is stifling innovation, similar to what content companies are doing.

I agree. It's broken.  It's time the 'content' industries learn to accept the concept of fair use and stop wasting the time and resources on going after the very people who they want for customers.

or it's time washington realizes that they shouldn't be cyber-bullied by disinformation campaigns... on a bi-partisan issue.

DMCA is a joke. A loophole for tech companies to abuse artists.

As an artist whose had to send thousands of DMCA notices to protect my work, I disagree.  Why should my work be distributed for free just because it's digital?  

You're having a larf.

Here's a google owned blog with hundreds of pages/postings, each one a perfect trampling of someone's property.

http://suicidepills.blogspot.com/

They try to skirt the law by hosting the sound files with a different company (the megaupload model).  They try to skirt your sense of morality by asking for donations for their "group of animal lovers".

Fortunately, only one of my groups was targeted and I sent in a dozen take down notices which were promptly acted upon by google.  The lead singer of the group commented that the uploader had a more complete collection of his releases than his own.  

Yet, google allows the blog to continue, despite the serial nature of their wrong doing.

My takedown requests were based on my ownership of the artwork and the compiled track listings. 

There's nothing "fair" about this abuse.

I'm owner of that blog and all i want to say:

FUCK YOU!

All those albums posted there are out of print material. Punk rock is not a crime, sucker.

"Out of print" is not synonymous with "public doman."  So go fuck yourself.  Punk is not a crime, but you are a criminal.  Deal with it.

"All those albums posted there are out of print material. Punk rock is not a crime, sucker."

No, every single one of the dozen take downs contain recordings that have been continuously in print since their release.  They're still in print in compact disc format on Captain Oi out of the UK and they are very much available as paid downloads worldwide.

If you restricted yourself to displaying sleeves of out of print records, there would be no problem, other than your lack of manners in not giving us a courtesy credit. But that is not your game plan, issit?  You offer mp3's of all the recordings contained on those slabs of vinyl and compact discs. 

I financially support other mp3 blogs that put up out of print recordings with detailed commentary.  Your site is pure piracy, no redeeming features whatsoever which you have so accurately reflected in your comment here.

So who are you, sucka?  You can come debate the issues with me anytime.

There won't be any more customers if you expand the definition of fair use to include streaming/downloading music, video, text, software, photos, or any other copyrightable material any time you want.

And what exactly are you smoking in that pipe Calista?

it´s not fair use if the consumer forces it on the content producer.  the way fair use works: a person creates content and states clearly that the creation can be used under their specified standards.

fair use is not someone downloading something and saying it´s for educational purposes, or uploading something on youtube and stating it´s fair use.  the user does not establish wether it´s fair use or not,   the producer does. 

this explanation is product of my belief that you don´t know how fair use works. 

Hate to break it to you but when a content producer determines how the content is used that is a description of their copyright not fair use.  

Fair use is determined by a number of factors: 

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

You are correct on that.  Yet, use for commercial gain is not fair use. 

I mistook fair use for the creative commons license, and that is what I explained there :). 

Yes, that's really smart thinking.  What brand of economics did you buy into?   Make a product, and open the doors to looters and turn your head.  Let everyone steal you blind and write it off saying "They are my target customers.  I have to make them happy."  This sounds like a bad parent who lets the kids get away with anything they want.  When the kid grows up they expect the world to hand everything to them on a silver platter. Everyone looses.  The parent, the kid and the community who would collectively benefit if everyone contributed.

I can enforce copyright without needing to do a single takedown:

http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/frystew-1158142-new-dce-content-owners-explan/

Google acts on 300K takedown requests a week - imagine how many they're actually receiving...

The Final Takedown or fair use?

Lol at the 2,000 BangBros takedowns!

I am actually surprised at how few takedown notices are sent by the major labels.  Is this b/c of ContentID or a b/c it requires too much time and money to whack all of the moles or they let a certain amount slide for promotional purposes?

Just went to the report at google. I didn't realize this data was for removal of URLs that host or allow infringing activity after a search is performed.  I assume that there is additional data for removal of individual posts on youtube?

Please explain why it's such great news for Google to have to handle 1.2m requests a month? Sounds rather like as wasteful use of resources to me?!

Our company is one of the 15,589 take down requests from Universal last week. We 'smoking gun' own the title in question and they have not been able to provide any proof whatsoever that they have a claim. However, fellow monolith SONY has seen fit to take $11,000 from us for our title, even though we have pristine rights and they have nothing. In the middle of it all is Apple and I Tunes. This is obviously a gambit by Universal to see how many small companies they can bully to get some free money. No doubt, some of their claims are valid. But this all smells of Anti Trust, and we are going to take up the fight for the independents and take on Sony, Apple, and Universal in an Anti Trust action that will give the independents some protection in this fast consolidating digital download business. Game On! 

"Ficara has revitalized the RKO Records label. First he had all of the masters digitally remastered. Then, through a deal with Varese Sarabande Records, had the major titles on the label reissued and distributed by MCA, now Universal Distribution."

Isn't this more of a contractual dispute between you and Universal?  Did you not respond in a timely manner to iTunes when they informed you of Universal's claim so that you could counter claim with your docs?

$11K?  Is that a cumulative mechanical licensing bill for The Archies as I see that Sony are the admin publisher and you've done a re-issue.  

Creative work is still protected by copyright last time I checked. If I write computer code, I get to decide whether to open source it, license it, or sell it commercially as an app or library. If I write music I can choose a very liberal creative commons license, or the more standard set of rights that have well-defined long standing ways to monetize, protect, and sue abusers. The problem is not that the rules and guidelines don't exist, the problem is that rights-holders don't have the money, time, or balls to enforce them anymore. You don't see a lot of network TV content or movie content stay on YouTube for very long. Why? Because the studios have the money, time, and balls to address the problem and don't stand for San Bruno bullshit. The music industry does not. Not enough money. Not nearly enough lobbyists. And the lawyers who deal with this for the labels? No comment. Copyright does need reform to catch up to present day realities. But the last time I checked laws on the books and policies that are firmly in place aren't null and void because of rapid changes in industry, telecom, and distribution models. Today you can abuse SEC regulations or copyright laws with impunity if you have enough money and lobbying power. That's just the world we live in. Don't bother with Washington, you need to go after the Silicon Valley PR machine and stop empowering a beast that is promoting your little continental breakfasts with your consent while eating your lunch and dinner later the same day. If you own the content, you have every right to control its distribution and monetization. You might have to launch denial of service attacks to enforce your rights, but you do have the right. Don't waste your money on a lawyer. They admit they can't do anything here.

Take down requests are not effective. There must be teeth to the laws for intellectual property rights to be enforced. Namely, fines and penalties against infringers, including companies who host and link to infringing content, uploaders, and downloaders.

- V

A tiny portion of the actual volume of theft occurring.

These are some really astounding figures...

Google is getting VERY busy...

Link takedowns are futile and create business for the wrong people.